BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF LETICA v. CROATIA
(Application
no. 27846/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Letica v. Croatia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D.
Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and
Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 27846/05) against the Republic
of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by two Croatian nationals, Mr Jere Letica and Mr
Branko Letica “the applicants”), on 9 June 2005
- The
Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs Š. StaZnik.
- On
11 January 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1930 and 1940 respectively and live in
Zagreb.
- On
29 January 1974 the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u
Splitu) received a death certificate of a certain M.K. and at the
hearing held on 28 February 1974 her will was pronounced. The
applicants were among her heirs. However, another party claimed that
M.K. had made another will on a date posterior to the one of the will
which had been pronounced.
- Until
5 November 1997 a number of hearings were held, but the proceedings
were not concluded. The last hearing was held on 3 October 1995.
After 5 November 1997 (i.e. the date when the Convention was ratified
by Croatia) the first hearing was held on 22 April 2003, and then
again on 15 May 2003.
- On
21 May 2003 the Split Municipal Court stayed the inheritance
proceedings and instructed the applicants and two other persons to
institute civil proceedings against a third person in connection with
the dispute among them arising in respect of the inheritance
proceedings. However, despite the fact that the proceedings were
stayed, on 20 August 2003 another hearing was held when it was
decided that the attorney, who allegedly assisted M.K. in drafting
her second will, be heard. Since the attorney resided in Zagreb, she
was heard by the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u
Zagrebu) on 11 May 2004.
- It
appears that the applicants appealed against the decision staying the
proceedings and on 13 July 2004 the case file was therefore
transferred to the Split County Court (Zupanijski sud u Splitu)
as the appellate court.
- Meanwhile,
on 23 January 2004 the applicants filed a constitutional complaint
about the length of proceedings. On 14 February 2005 the
Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' right to a
trial within reasonable time and awarded each applicant Croatian
Kunas (HRK) 10,600 in compensation. It also ordered the Split County
Court to adopt its decision in the shortest time possible but no
later than six months from the publication of the decision in the
Official Gazette.
- On
8 April 2005 the Split County Court upheld the first instance
decision by which the inheritance proceedings had been stayed.
- In
the civil proceedings instituted according to the Municipal Court's
instruction (see paragraph 7 above) on 9 May 2005, another party
filed a constitutional complaint about the length of these
proceedings and on 12 March 2007 the Constitutional Court ordered the
Split Municipal Court to adopt its decision in the shortest time
possible but no later than six months from the publication of the
decision in the Official Gazette.
- The
inheritance proceedings are sill pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Article
29 § 1 of the Constitution (Ustav Republike
Hrvatske, Official Gazette no. 41/2001 of 7 May 2001) reads as
follows:
“In the determination of his rights and
obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is
entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial court established by law.”
- The
relevant part of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court
(Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske, Official
Gazette no. 49/2002 of 3 May 2002 – “the
Constitutional Court Act”) reads as follows:
Section 63
“(1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a
constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been
exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning
the applicant's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against
him or her within a reasonable time ...
(2) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph 1
of this section is upheld, the Constitutional Court shall set a
time-limit within which the competent court must decide the case on
the merits...
(3) In a decision issued under paragraph 2 of this
section, the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate
compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her
constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the
State budget within three months from the date a request for payment
is lodged.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the inheritance proceedings
was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement,
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which 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...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers that the period to be taken into consideration began
on 6 November 1997, the day after the entry into force of the
Convention in respect of Croatia. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. In this connection
the Court notes that the proceedings commenced on 29 January 1974.
Thus, they were pending for about twenty-three years and nine months
before the ratification.
- The
case was still pending on 14 February 2005 when the Constitutional
Court gave its decision. On that date the proceedings had lasted
another seven years and three months.
- The
proceedings have not yet ended. They have lasted about another two
years and seven months after the decision of the Constitutional
Court. Thus, in total, the case has so far been pending for more than
nine years and ten months after the ratification. During that period
no decisions on merits has been adopted and the case has been
examined at one level of jurisdiction.
- The
Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be
victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention since the
Constitutional Court had accepted the applicants' constitutional
complaint, found a violation of their constitutional right to a
hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded them compensation. The
violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the
domestic authorities and the applicants had lost their victim status.
- The
applicants disagreed.
- The Court observes that in the present case the
applicants' victim status within the meaning of the Convention
depends on whether the redress afforded to them at the domestic level
was adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the
Convention. This issue falls to be determined in the light of the
principles established under the Court's case-law (see, most
recently, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-... and Cocchiarella
v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR
2006-...).
- In
this connection, the Court notes that on 14 February 2005 the
Constitutional Court awarded each applicant the equivalent of
approximately 1,440 euros (EUR) and ordered the Split County Court to
deliver a decision on appeal within six months. Furthermore, upon
another constitutional complaint concerning the length of civil
proceedings the resolution of which is indispensable for the
inheritance proceedings in question to continue (see §§ 7
and 11 above), and which complaint was lodged by the other party to
those civil proceedings, the Constitutional Court also ordered that
those civil proceedings be speeded up, which had a beneficial effect
on the applicant as well. However, the Court considers that the
amount awarded did not correspond to the gravity of the violation,
bearing in mind the circumstances of the present case and in
particular the overall length of the inheritance proceedings,
exceeding thirty one years at the time when the Constitutional Court
gave its decision. This factor combined with the fact that the
proceedings are still pending leads to a result that the redress
obtained by the applicants at the domestic level was unreasonable
having regard to the Court's case-law and thus insufficient (see
Cocchiarella, cited above, §§ 106-107; and, mutatis
mutandis, Tomašić v. Croatia,
no. 21753/02, § 35, 19 October 2006). The
applicants can accordingly still claim to be “victims” of
a breach of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
- The
Court further recalls that, when the compensation awarded by the
national authorities in respect of the length of proceedings has been
found insufficient, the Court is called upon to examine the overall
length of the impugned proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis,
Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, § 23, 2
November 2006). Given the above finding that the applicants may still
claim to be “victims” of the alleged violation, the
examination of the total length is warranted (see Solárová
and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, §§ 41
and 43, 5 December 2006).
- In
this connection the Court observes, as noted above, that the
proceedings have so far lasted another two years and seven months
after the Constitutional Court's decision. The applicants did not
lodge another constitutional complaint in respect of this period.
However, in light of the above conclusion concerning their victim
status, they were not required to do so. The Court shall take this
period into consideration when determining the merits of the case
and, if appropriate, the applicants' claim for just satisfaction
under Article 41 of the Convention (see Solárová and
Others v. Slovakia, cited above, § 42; Rišková
v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 90, 22 August 2006).
- The
Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Mahmutović v. Croatia, no. 9505/03,
15 February 2007).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court concurs with the
Constitutional Court that in the instant case the length of the
proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
- As
regards the period subsequent to the delivery of the Constitutional
Court's decision, the Court notes that, following a remittal, the
proceedings are again pending at first instance. In these
circumstances, the Court necessarily concludes that further
unjustified delays occurred after that date.
- In
view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has
been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicants asked the Court to award them damages in the amount
corresponding to its case-law in similar cases.
- The
Government made no comments in this respect.
- The
Court recalls that where an applicant had resorted to an available
domestic remedy and thereby obtained a finding of a violation and was
awarded compensation, but can nevertheless still claim to be a
“victim”, the amount to be awarded under Article 41
may be less than the amounts the Court was awarding in similar cases.
In that case an applicant must be awarded the difference between the
amount obtained from the Constitutional Court and an amount that
would not have been regarded as manifestly unreasonable compared with
the amounts awarded by the Court. An applicant should also be awarded
an amount in respect of stages of the proceedings that may not have
been taken into account by the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis
mutandis, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC],
cited above, §§ 139-141).
- The
Court recalls that each applicant was awarded EUR 1,440 by the
Constitutional Court. Having regard to the circumstances of the
present case, the characteristics of the constitutional complaint as
well as the fact that, notwithstanding this domestic remedy, the
Court has found a violation, it considers, ruling on an equitable
basis, that the applicants should be awarded jointly EUR 1,400 in
respect of the period covered by the Constitutional Court's decision.
- The
Court also awards the applicants the sum of EUR 2,400 for the further
delay in the proceedings following the delivery of the Constitutional
Court's decision of 14 February 2005.
- Accordingly,
the applicants shall be awarded jointly the total sum of EUR 3,800 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants did not submit a claim for the costs and expenses.
Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them
any sum on that account.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 3,800 (three thousand eight hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of
the respondent State at a rate applicable at the date of settlement,
plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
