SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63556/13
Ružica KOVAČ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Ružica Kovač, is a Croatian national, who was
born in 1974 and lives in Rijeka. She was represented before the Court by
Ms J. Hodžić, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised
as follows.
1. Principal proceedings
(a) The first set of enforcement proceedings
4. On an unspecified date in 1999 the Croatian Telecom company
(hereinafter “the enforcement creditor”) instituted enforcement proceedings
2
KOVAČ v. CROATIA DECISION
against the applicant before the Poreč Municipal Court (Općinski sud u
Poreču) to recover unpaid telecommunications service charges in the
amount of 16,231.68 Croatian kunas (HRK).
5. On 22 November 1999 that court issued a writ of execution (rješenje
o ovrsi) by seizure and sale of the debtor’s movable property.
6. By a decision of 13 June 2000 the court set aside that writ of
execution, declined its territorial jurisdiction and transferred the case to the
Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci).
7. That decision or the writ of execution was never served on the
applicant.
(b) The second set of enforcement proceedings
8. On 23 November 2009 the enforcement creditor instituted the second
set of enforcement proceedings before the Poreč Municipal Court against
the applicant for the same debt. It relied on the writ of execution issued in
the first set of enforcement proceedings (paragraph 5 above) as the
enforcement title and sought temporary seizure of funds on the applicant’s
bank accounts.
9. On 2 March 2010 the court issued a decision to that effect.
10. On 26 August 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision. In
her appeal she stated that she had learned of the both sets of enforcement
proceedings as late as 23 August 2010 when, after realizing that her bank
account had been blocked, her legal representative had consulted the casefile.
11. On 8 November 2011 the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli)
quashed the first-instance decision of 2 March 2010 and remitted the case.
12. In the resumed proceedings, by a decision of 27 December 2010 the
Poreč Municipal Court established that the enforcement title had been set
aside (see paragraph 6 above) and, accordingly, discontinued the
enforcement proceedings.
13. Following the enforcement creditor’s appeal, on 23 March 2011 the
Pula County Court quashed that decision and remitted the case.
14. In the fresh proceedings, on 24 February 2012 the enforcement
creditor withdrew its application for temporary seizure whereupon by a
decision of 20 April 2012 the Poreč Municipal Court concluded the
proceedings.
2. The proceedings following the applicant’s request for protection of
the right to a hearing within a reasonable time
15. Meanwhile, on 4 May 2011 the applicant lodged a request for
protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Pula
County Court complaining about the length of the above enforcement
proceedings.
KOVAČ v. CROATIA DECISION
3
16. On 16 August 2011 that court dismissed her request. It examined
only the length of the second set of enforcement proceedings and held that
at that time they lasted only one year and some nine months, which could
not be considered excessive.
17. The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia, that she had complained
of the length of both sets of enforcement proceedings, taken together.
18. By a decision of 18 October 2012 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud
Republike Hrvatske) granted the appeal, quashed the above decision but
declared the applicant’s request inadmissible. That court established that the
applicant in her request had complained only of the length of the second set
of the enforcement proceedings. It held that those proceedings had not
concerned determination of her civil rights and obligations and that,
therefore, she could not seek protection of the right to a hearing within the
reasonable time in respect of those proceedings.
19. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint against that
decision.
20. On 21 March 2013 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike
Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible and
served its decision on the applicant’s representative on 3 April 2013. The
Constitutional Court held that the contested Supreme Court’s decision was
not open to constitutional review.
COMPLAINT
21. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about the length of the two sets of enforcement proceedings, taken together.
THE LAW
22. The applicant complained that the overall length of the two sets of
enforcement proceedings in question 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 ...”
23. The Government disputed the admissibility of the application by
arguing that the applicant had failed to observe the six-month rule, that
Article 6 of the Convention was inapplicable and that the application was in
any event manifestly ill-founded.
24. The applicant contested those arguments.
KOVAČ v. CROATIA DECISION
4
25. The Court does not find it necessary to examine all inadmissibility
objections raised by the Government or to reproduce the parties’ arguments
in (more) detail because the present application is in any event inadmissible
for the reasons set out below.
26. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (see Hadjibakalov
v. Bulgaria, no. 58497/00, § 47, 8 June 2006), the Court considers that the
period to be taken into consideration began on 23 August 2010 when the
applicant, in her own admission, learned of the both sets of enforcement
proceedings (see paragraph 10 above). That period ended on 20 April 2012
when the Poreč Municipal Court concluded the second set of the
proceedings (see paragraph 14 above). It thus lasted one year and some
eight months before two levels of jurisdiction, which cannot be considered
excessive.
27. It follows that this application is inadmissible under
Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.
Hasan Bakırcı
Deputy Registrar
Paul Lemmens
President