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 VIDAS v. CROATIA
(Application
no. 40383/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
July 2008
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 Vidas v. Croatia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 40383/04) 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 a Croatian national, Mr Stipe Vidas (“the
applicant”), on 25 October 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Debelić, a lawyer practising
in Rab. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. StaZnik.
- On
31 January 2007 the Court decided to communicate the complaints
concerning the length of proceedings and the alleged lack of an
effective remedy in that respect 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
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Rab.
- While
working with a circular saw on 16 May 1994 the applicant sustained an
injury in the workplace resulting in the loss of two fingers. The
injuries were of such a degree that on 29 March 1995 the applicant
had to retire and was awarded a disability pension.
- On
22 September 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the
company, S., in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu)
seeking damages in connection with the above accident. The applicant
subsequently designated company J. as the respondent because he
considered it to be the legal successor of company S., which had gone
bankrupt and had been erased from the companies' register in 1996.
- In
a judgment of 15 May 2000 the Rab Municipal Court declared the
applicant's action inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction and referred
the case to the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u
Rijeci). The applicant appealed and on 4 October 2000 the Rijeka
County Court (Zupanijski sud u Rijeci) quashed the
first-instance decision and referred the case to the Crikvenica
Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) as the
competent court.
- On
25 October 2002 the Crikvenica Municipal Court gave judgment
dismissing the applicant's claim. The judgment was quashed upon an
appeal lodged by the applicant on 29 January 2003 by the Rijeka
County Court and the case was remitted to the court of first
instance.
- Meanwhile,
on 28 March 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with
the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske)
complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 13 April
2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of his constitutional
right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 5,200
Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Crikvenica
Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time
possible but no later than twelve months following the publication of
the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's
decision was published on 2 May 2005.
- In
the resumed proceedings, on 10 February 2006 the Crikvenica Municipal
Court again gave judgment dismissing the applicant's claim. The
applicant again appealed and on 5 July 2006 the Rijeka County Court
dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
- On
5 September 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law
(revizija) with the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 21
February 2007.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC 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
applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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...”
- The
Government acknowledged, in light of the Constitutional Court's
decision, that there had been a violation of the applicant's right to
a hearing within a reasonable time. However, they maintained that he
had been afforded appropriate redress at the national level.
- 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
22 September 1995, when the applicant brought his civil action. Thus,
they were pending for about a year and ten months before the
ratification.
- The
case was still pending on 13 April 2005 when the Constitutional Court
gave its decision. On that date the proceedings had lasted, after the
ratification, seven years and five months at two levels of
jurisdiction.
- The
proceedings were concluded by the Supreme Court's judgment of 21
February 2007. They thus lasted a further year, ten months and eight
days after the Constitutional Court's decision. During that time the
case was examined at three levels of jurisdiction. Thus, in total,
the case was pending for more than nine years and three months after
the ratification.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention since the
Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant's constitutional
complaint, found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing
within a reasonable time, and awarded him compensation. The violation
complained of had, therefore, been remedied before the domestic
authorities and the applicant had lost his victim status.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The Court observes that in the present case the
applicant's victim status within the meaning of the Convention
depends on whether the redress afforded to him 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 13 April 2005 the
Constitutional Court awarded the applicant the equivalent of
approximately 700 euros (EUR) and ordered the Crikvenica Municipal
Court to deliver a decision within twelve months. The compensation
awarded by the Constitutional Court cannot be considered sufficient
having regard to the Court's case-law, in particular bearing in mind
that the proceedings at issue concerned an action for damages in
connection to a work-related accident which rendered the applicant
unfit for further work. Accordingly, the applicant can still claim to
be the “victim” of a breach of his right to a hearing
within reasonable time, and the Government's objection must therefore
be dismissed.
- The Court further recalls that, if the way in which
the Constitutional Court interpreted and applied the relevant
provisions of the domestic law produces consequences that are
inconsistent with the principles of the Convention, as interpreted in
the light of the Court's case-law, 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
applicant may still claim to be a “victim” of the alleged
violation, an 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 lasted another year and ten months after the
Constitutional Court's decision. The Court shall take this period
into consideration when determining the merits of the case and, if
appropriate, the applicant's 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).
- Having
regard to the above facts the Court considers 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 Tatjana Marinović v. Croatia,
no. 9627/03, 6 October 2005).
- 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 were examined at three levels of jurisdiction and finally
concluded in February 2007. Although no further unjustified delays
occurred in that period, having regard to the overall length of the
proceedings and the delays that occurred prior to the Constitutional
Court's decision, the Court considers that the applicant was not
afforded a trial within a reasonable time.
- In
view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has
been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had
not had an effective remedy for the length of the civil proceedings
because it had taken the Constitutional Court more than three years
to decide his constitutional complaint. He relied on 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
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court considers that this complaint is linked to the one examined
above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government argued that the Constitutional complaint was an effective
remedy in respect of the length of proceedings, as it had already
been recognised by the Court.
- The
applicant contested that argument.
- Article
13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of
a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and
freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the
domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the
provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an
“arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant
appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, Kudła
v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
- The
scope of the Contracting States' obligations under Article 13 varies
depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the
remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in
practice as well as in law (see, for example, İlhan v. Turkey
[GC], no. 22277/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII). The term
“effective” is also considered to mean that the remedy
must be adequate and accessible (Paulino Tomás v. Portugal
(dec.), no. 58698/00, ECHR 2003-...). In addition, particular
attention should be paid to, inter alia, the speediness of the
remedial action itself, it not being excluded that the adequate
nature of the remedy can be undermined by its excessive duration
(Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR
1999-IX, and Paulino Tomás, cited above).
- The
Court recalls that it has already found that a constitutional
complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act represents
an effective remedy about the length of proceedings that are pending
(see Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.),
no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002 VII). As to the present case the
Court notes that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court upon
the applicant's complaint about the length of the civil proceedings
lasted three years and fifteen days. The Court considers that a
remedy designed to address the length of proceedings may be
considered effective only if it provides adequate redress speedily.
In the circumstances of the present case it considers that the
effectiveness of the constitutional complaint as a remedy for the
length of the pending civil proceedings was undermined by its
excessive duration.
It
follows that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the
Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO
THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and without
specifying this complaint further, the applicant alleged that the
facts of the case also disclosed a violation of the right to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions “in the widest sense”.
- 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 complaint 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.
IV 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
applicant claimed EUR 11,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR
21,775 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government deemed the amount claimed on account of pecuniary damage
unrelated to the facts of the present case and the amount claimed on
account of non-pecuniary damage excessive.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 2,300 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that
amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 12,546 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
- The
Government did not comment.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,560 plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicant.
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 complaints concerning the length of
the civil proceedings and the alleged lack of an effective remedy in
that respect admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts which are to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 2,300 (two thousand three hundred euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,560 (one thousand five hundred and sixty euros) in respect of costs
and expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
