FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
DOMANČIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application no.
18786/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 May 2013
This judgment is final but
it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Domančić v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Committee composed of:
Elisabeth Steiner,
President,
Mirjana Lazarova
Trajkovska,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 18786/11) 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, Ms Mara Domančić (“the
applicant”), on 1 March 2011.
The applicant was
represented by Mr K. Miličić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms
Š. Stažnik.
On 17 January 2012 the application was
communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb.
A. Civil proceedings
On 9 October 1992 the applicant brought a civil
action in the Gospić Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Gospiću)
against the company T.G. challenging her dismissal from work. She also sought
damages and salary arrears.
At the hearing held on 23 August 2006 the
first-instance court suspended the proceedings (mirovanje postupka) as
neither party attended the hearing.
On 18 December 2006 the applicant asked the court
to resume the proceedings. The court did so and scheduled the next hearing for
10 January 2007.
On 23 December 2006 the applicant asked for
transfer of jurisdiction from the Gospić Municipal Court to the Zagreb
Municipal Court but her request was eventually dismissed. That decision was served
on her on 22 February 2007.
As neither party attended the hearing held on 7 March
2007, the Gospić Municipal Court issued a decision declaring that the applicant’s
action was considered withdrawn, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act.
On 2 April 2007 the applicant lodged a request to
restore the proceedings to their previous position (restitutio in integrum
ob terminem elapsum, povrat u prijašnje stanje) but the
first-instance court dismissed her request on 3 March 2008.
Following an appeal by the applicant, on 27 May
2008 the Gospić County Court (Županijski sud u Gospiću) reversed
the first-instance decision and allowed the applicant’s request to restore
the proceedings to their previous position.
In the resumed proceedings, the Gospić Municipal
Court held five hearings. At the hearing held on 15 December 2010 the court pronounced
the operative part of the judgement. It declared the applicant’s dismissal from
work wrongful, allowed her claim for salary arrears in part and dismissed her
claim for damages.
Following a request of the judge appointed to hear the
case, on 10 February 2011 the President of the Gospić Municipal
Court granted an additional thirty-day time-limit for the judgement to be prepared
in writing and dispatched to the parties.
According to the Government, the judgement had
been prepared on 28 March 2011 and then, on 30 March 2011, dispatched to
the parties. It was served on the applicant’s representative on 1 April 2011.
Following an appeal by the applicant, on 13
October 2011 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) reversed
the first-instance judgment by allowing her claim for damages.
B. The proceedings following the applicant’s request
for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time
Meanwhile, on 9 December 2009 the applicant
lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable
time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the
Gospić County Court.
On 12 February 2010 the Gospić County Court
found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 14,000 in compensation and ordered the Gospić
Municipal Court to give a decision in her case within eleven months of the
service of its decision. The County Court’s decision was served on the Gospić
Municipal Court on the same day, that is, on 12 February 2010.
The applicant appealed arguing that the compensation
she had been awarded was too low. On 31 August 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed
her appeal and upheld the Gospić County Court’s decision.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The relevant provisions of the Courts Act (Zakon
o sudovima, Official Gazette nos. 150/05, 16/07 and 113/08), governing the
request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time,
as the remedy for the length of judicial proceedings in Croatia, are set out in
Praunsperger v. Croatia, no. 16553/08,
§ 21, 22 April 2010.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the
proceedings had been 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 ...”
The Government contested that argument.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 6 November 1997, the day after the Convention entered into force in respect
of Croatia, and ended on 9 November 2011, when the Gospić County Court’s
judgment of 13 October 2011 was served on the applicant’s representative. It
thus lasted some fourteen years before two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
1. The applicant’s victim status
The Government submitted that the Gospić
County Court had accepted the applicant’s request, found a violation of her
right to a hearing within reasonable time and awarded her appropriate
compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been remedied before
the domestic authorities and, as a result, the applicant had lost her victim
status.
The Court first notes that at the time when the
Gospić County Court gave its decision on the applicant’s request, the proceedings
had been pending for some twelve years and three months at one level of
jurisdiction. It further notes that the County Court awarded the applicant the
equivalent of approximately 1,907 euros (EUR). The compensation awarded by that
court does not correspond to what the Court would have been likely to award
under Article 41 of the Convention in respect of the same period.
In the same decision the Gospić County
Court also ordered the Gospić Municipal Court to decide the applicant’s
case within eleven months of the service of its decision. Given that the County
Court’s decision was served on the Municipal Court on 12 February 2010 (see
paragraph 17 above), the time-limit in question expired on 12 January 2011. As
the Municipal Court pronounced the operative part of the first-instance
judgement at the hearing of 15 December 2010, it may seem that it, at least
formally, complied with the time-limit left to it. However, the Court notes
that the written judgement was actually prepared only on 28 March 2011, whereupon
it was, on 30 March 2011, dispatched to the parties (see paragraph 14 above). It
follows that the Gospić Municipal Court in fact exceeded the time-limit set
by the Gospić County Court by two and a half months. Furthermore, the additional
thirty days time-limit granted by the President of the Gospić Municipal
Court for preparing and dispatching the judgement in writing (see paragraph 13
above) was also exceeded by more than a month and a half.
In these circumstances and given that the
applicant was served with the first-instance judgement on 1 April 2011, it
cannot but be concluded that the time-limit fixed by the Gospić County
Court was not complied with. The Court notes that the purpose of the domestic
remedy the applicant availed herself is, inter alia, to speed up the
proceedings complained of. By merely pronouncing the operative part of the judgement,
without serving it in writing on the applicant within the time-limit set forth
by the Gospić County Court, the first-instance court failed to maintain
the necessary pace of the proceedings. As a consequence, although the applicant
could have known the outcome of the proceedings, she was unable to either
appeal or enforce the judgement.
Having regard in particular to the fact that the
Gospić Municipal Court did not comply with the County Court’s order to
deliver a decision within eleven months, the compensation awarded cannot be
regarded as adequate in the circumstances of the case (see the principles
established under the Court’s case-law in Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01,
§§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V, or Scordino
v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-213, ECHR 2006-V).
Therefore, in respect of the period covered by the County Court’s finding, the
applicant has not lost her victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of
the Convention. It follows that the Government’s objection concerning the
applicant’s victim status has to be rejected.
2. Whether the applicant suffered a significant
disadvantage
The Government also submitted that this
complaint was inadmissible because the applicant had not suffered a significant
disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention.
The Court considers that the fact that it took
fourteen years for the domestic courts to deliver a final judgment in the above
civil proceedings, during which period the applicant could not obtain
compensation for her wrongful dismissal and the pertaining salary arrears, must
have had negative effect on her personal situation. Thus, it cannot be said
that she did not suffer a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged
violation of Article 6 § 1 the Convention. The Government’s objection
concerning the alleged lack of a significant disadvantage must therefore be
rejected.
3. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Lastly, the Government invited the Court to declare
the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They
submitted that the applicant should have appealed against the Supreme Court’s
decision to a three-member panel of the same court.
As regards the Government’s argument that the
applicant should have lodged an appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision,
the Court refers to its above finding that the applicant can still claim to be
the victim of the violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time
primarily because of the unjustified delay in rendering of the Gospić
Municipal Court’s decision (see paragraphs 25-27 above). In these circumstances
the Court does not see, and the Government has not explained, how lodging an
appeal would have remedied that error.
It follows that the Government’s objection as to
the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present case must also be rejected.
4. Conclusion
The Court considers that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
It also notes, having regard to the foregoing, 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at
stake for the applicant 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 Frydlender, cited above).
Having examined all the material submitted to
it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the
present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant also complained under Article 13
of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 thereof, that the Gospić
Municipal Court had not complied with the Gospić County Court’s order to
deliver a decision within the prescribed time-limit. Article 13 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.”
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Court reiterates (see paragraph 19 above)
that that the Gospić Municipal Court exceeded the time-limit left to it by
the Gospić County Court to deliver a decision in the applicant’s case by two
and a half months.
The Court has already found violations of
Article 13 of the Convention in similar cases (see, for example, Kaić
and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008; Medić v. Croatia, no. 49916/07, 26 March 2009, and Lonza v. Croatia, no. 14062/07, 1 April 2010). Having examined
all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have
not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a
different conclusion in the present case.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 13 in the
present case.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant did not submit a claim for just
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her
any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds
that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 13 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 May 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
André Wampach Elisabeth
Steiner
Deputy Registrar President
