RUMOH PERNAR A DESPOT proti Chorvatsku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 55813/17
Tina RUMOH PERNAR and Dunja DESPOT

against Croatia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 July 2017,

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 list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Mr A. Marjanović Kavanagh, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning restricted access to court in view of unreasonable amount of costs and length of proceedings were communicated to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), whereas the remainder of their complaints were declared inadmissible on 29 May 2019.

THE LAW

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 applicants’ right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants 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 applicants, who were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, objected to striking the case out because they deemed the proposed amount excessively low.

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 case 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 access‑to-court complaints relating to excessive costs of proceedings (see, for example, Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013; Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016, and Čolić v. Croatia, no. 49083/18, 18 November 2021), as well as 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 (Article 37 § 1 (c)). As regards the applicants’ objection to the terms of the unilateral declaration, the Court has, in the absence of further details, no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of their Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49‑50, 28 June 2016, and Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Korol v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 20129/18, 20 May 2021).

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 (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.

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.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 November 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.