FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 33867/06
by Josip VUJČIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 August 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Josip Vujčić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The first set of civil proceedings (the employment dispute)
a. On 6 July 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, a Hungarian company GE L.T. Rt., in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), challenging his dismissal and seeking payment of his salary arrears and a bonus for outstanding work performance. On an unspecified date the defendant in the proceedings lodged a counter-claim, requesting that the applicant reimburse the bonus which the company had allegedly overpaid him. Before the court, the applicant was represented by V.V., a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The Zagreb Municipal Court held hearings on 13 October 2000 and 21 February 2001.
On 21 February 2001 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible as being lodged out of time. On 5 February 2002 the Zagreb County Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
A hearing scheduled for 27 November 2002 was adjourned because the judge was ill.
On 18 December 2002 the applicant informed the court that he had withdrawn his previous authority for legal representation by V.V., and appointed a new legal representative.
At a hearing held on 15 April 2003 the defendant informed the court that the applicant had been assigned to a different post in the company’s office in Zagreb.
On 27 May 2003 the applicant informed the court that he had withdrawn his previous authority for legal representation and decided to represent himself in person.
On 15 April 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in the part challenging his dismissal, as being lodged out of time.
The applicant did not appeal against that decision, which thus became final. The proceedings continued in respect of the remainder of the applicant’s claims and the defendant’s counter-claim.
At a hearing held on 5 November 2003 the applicant gave evidence and the court advised him that it was in his interest to be legally represented, given the complexity of the case. The applicant continued to represent himself in person however.
During 2004 both parties asked for adjournments of the proceedings in order to prepare their further arguments. The requests were granted.
Further hearings were held on 21 December 2004 and 9 June 2005.
On 20 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings.
On 12 July 2006 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant 9,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the case in the shortest time possible and not later than eight months after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court in the Official Gazette.
The Constitutional Court’s decision was published in the Official Gazette on 28 August 2006 and the eight-month period expired on 29 April 2007.
The proceedings are at present pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.
b. In the course of the proceedings the applicant requested that the presiding judge withdraw from the case. The Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed his request as unfounded.
The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against this decision with the Constitutional Court. On 24 November 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that it did not concern the merits of the case.
2. The second set of civil proceedings (the dispute concerning damages) and two sets of the proceedings for an interim measure
a. On 1 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court against V.V., his former legal counsel in the employment dispute mentioned above, V.V.’s law firm and two insurance companies, HOK O. and C.O. The applicant sought damages for the lawyer’s alleged failure to bring his civil action in the above-mentioned employment dispute in time. The applicant subsequently withdrew his claim against the insurance company C.O.
At a hearing held on 14 March 2003 the court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim.
On 24 May 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal. The proceedings are still pending.
b. On 24 June 2004 the applicant sought an interim measure from the Zagreb Municipal Court preventing his former legal counsel, V.V., from disposing of a flat that the lawyer owned in Zagreb.
On 3 February 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s request.
The applicant appealed. On 26 April 2005 the Zagreb County Court upheld the first-instance decision.
On 19 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, which was declared inadmissible on 24 November 2005 by the Constitutional Court on the ground that it did not concern the merits of the case.
c. On 30 June 2004 the applicant requested the Zagreb Municipal Court to record the dispute in the Land Registry and also asked for an interim measure prohibiting V.V. from disposing of her flat in Zagreb.
That request was dismissed on 10 October 2006. The applicant appealed. His appeal was dismissed by the Zagreb County Court on 20 November 2007. It is not clear from the case file whether the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.
3. Criminal complaints lodged by the applicant
a. On 11 June 2003 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against his former legal representative, V.V., charging her with forgery of an official document; wrongly certifying that false facts were true; and abuse of trust.
On 22 December 2003 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office declared the criminal complaint inadmissible and informed the applicant of his right to continue the private prosecution.
b. On 15 February 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the Minister of Justice, the judge presiding in the employment dispute, the President of the Civil Department of the Zagreb Municipal Court and some unidentified employees of that court, charging them with a number of offences related to corruption.
On 29 February 2008 the applicant brought another criminal complaint against a number of persons involved in the proceedings for damages, charging them with criminal offences related to corruption.
It appears that no decision about these complaints has yet been adopted.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning the employment dispute.
2. Without relying on any provisions of the Convention or its Protocols, the applicant complained that the Constitutional Court’s order that the Zagreb Municipal Court deliver a decision in the shortest time possible but not later than eight months after the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette, had remained ineffective.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the outcome and unfairness of the proceedings relating to the employment dispute. As to the proceedings for damages and proceedings for interim measures, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of their length, outcome and unfairness. Without relying on any provision of the Convention or its Protocols, the applicant sought the criminal prosecution and conviction of persons named in his criminal complaints. The applicant also invoked Articles 8 § 1 and 10 § 1 of the Convention, without further substantiation.
THE LAW
1. The applicant firstly complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings concerning the employment dispute he had instituted in the Zagreb Municipal Court. The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complained that the time-limit imposed by the Constitutional Court on the Zagreb Municipal Court for adopting a decision in the above employment dispute had not been complied with. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
3. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant further complained about the outcome of the employment dispute, the length and unfairness of the proceedings in which he sought damages and of the proceedings concerning his request for an interim measure in connection with the civil proceedings for damages. He sought the criminal conviction of third persons. He also invoked Articles 8 § 1 and 10 § 1 of the Convention, without any further substantiation.
In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the employment dispute and the existence of an effective remedy in that respect;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy