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
1.  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.
2.  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.
3.  On 17 January 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb.
A.  Civil proceedings
5.  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.
6.  At the hearing held on 23 August 2006 the first-instance court suspended the proceedings (mirovanje postupka) as neither party attended the hearing.
7.  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.
8.  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.
9.  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held on 7 March 2007, the Gospić Municipal Court issued a decision declaring that the applicant’s action was considered withdrawn, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act.
10.  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.
11.  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.
12.  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.
13. 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.
14.  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.
15.  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
16.  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.
17.  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 14,0001 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.
18.  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
19.  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
20.  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 ...”
21.  The Government contested that argument.
22.  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
23.  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.
24.  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.
25.  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.
26.  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.
27.  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
28.  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.
29.  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
30.  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.
31.  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.
32.  It follows that the Government’s objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the present case must also be rejected.
4.  Conclusion
33.  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
34.  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).
35.  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).
36.  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
37.  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
38.  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
39.  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.
40.  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
41.  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