ROBERT BOSCH d.o.o. proti Chorvatsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 6598/22
ROBERT BOSCH d.o.o.
against Croatia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Jovan Ilievski, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 2022,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant company’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant company was represented by Mr A. Marjanović Kavanagh, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The applicant company’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in that regard were communicated to the Croatian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant company’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant company the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant company was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant company accepting the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration, namely in the part concerning the excessive length of proceedings (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application to the extent that it concerns the excessive length of proceedings (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list insofar as it concerns the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

As regards the applicant company’s related complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court first notes that from November 2019 a constitutional complaint is an effective remedy for the breaches of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in Croatia (see Kirinčić and Others, cited above, §§ 103-17). It further notes that by way of the Government’s unilateral declaration the applicant company obtained an acknowledgment of the violation of that right and an appropriate redress. In these circumstances the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present application has been addressed and that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant company’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 165, ECHR 2014).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in the part covered by the unilateral declaration;

Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant company’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 December 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant company