FIRST SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 17338/05 by Ivka LJUBI ČIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr K. Hajiyev , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 March 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ivka Ljubi čić , is a Croatian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Zagreb . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr s Š. Stažnik .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1965 the applicant bought the attic of a house on Puljska Street , Zagreb . In the same year she obtained a building permit ( građevinska dozvola ) and built a new floor and a garage; in 1995 she also obtained a permit to use the newly built part of the building ( uporabna dozvola ).

On 14 July 1998 the applicant filed a request with the Land Registry Division of the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Zemljišnoknjižni odjel Općinskog su d a u Zagrebu ), asking that the newly built attic and garage be entered in the land register as her property. On 11 January 1999 the applicant further asked that the change in the street name, from Puljska to Vitezovićeva , also be recorded in the land register.

When the applicant failed to comply with the Municipal Court ’ s invitation of 29 September 1998 to submit all the documents necessary for it to comply with her request, the court dismissed the applicant ’ s request on 23 April 2004. The decision expressly stated that the applicant would be able to have her ownership recorded in the land register once she submitted all relevant documentation. The applicant ’ s subsequent appeal of 12 May 2004 was dismissed by the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) on 15 March 2005.

Meanwhile, on 25 February 2004 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint in respect of the length of proceedings. On 14 October 2004 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared the applicant ’ s complaint inadmissible. It found that a constitutional complaint was not allowed in respect of the proceedings in question, since the decisions to be adopted in those proceedings were not individual acts within the meaning of section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , hereinafter “the Constitutional Court Act”) and thus not within its competence.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 29 § 1 of the Constitution ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 41/2001 of 7 May 2001) provides:

“In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”

The relevant part of section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 49/2002 of 3 May 2002) provides:

“(1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint, irrespective of whether all legal remedies have been exhausted, if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant ’ s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

(2) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph 1 of this section is upheld, the Constitutional Court shall set a time-limit within which the competent court must decide the case on the merits...

(3) In a decision issued under paragraph 2 of this section, the Constitutional Court shall assess the appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the State budget within three months from the date on which a request for payment is lodged.”

Under the case-law of the Constitutional Court as applied until 26 April 2006, constitutional complaints lodged under section 63 in the context of all land registry proceedings were to be declared inadmissible. In decision no. U-IIIA/3244/2004 of 26 April 2006 the Constitutional Court changed its practice, accepting a complainant ’ s constitutional complaint and awarding him compensation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect.

She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1 that her property rights had been violated because her request to have her ownership entered into the land register had been denied.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained that the length of the land registry proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that she had no effective remedy in respect of the length of these proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the relevant part of which read as follows :

Article 6

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

Article 13

“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.”

The Government invited the Court to reject the applicant ’ s complaint on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, claiming that in 2002 section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act introduced an effective domestic remedy in respect of length of proceedings. On 26 April 2006 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision in which it made the reasonable time requirements applicable to land registry proceedings .

In the alternative the Government invited the Court to conclude that the application did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had contributed to the length of proceedings because she had failed to submit all documents necessary for the Zagreb Municipal Court to be able to comply with her request.

The applicant contested these arguments.

The Court considers that it does not have to answer the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies because the application is anyhow inadmissible for the following reasons.

The Court firstly notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 14 July 1998 and ended on 15 March 2005. It thus lasted six years, eight months and one day before two levels of jurisdiction.

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).

As to the complexity of the case, the Court notes that the case did not involve any particular factual or legal complexity.

As to the behaviour of the domestic authorities, the Court reiterates that only delays for which the State can be held responsible may justify a finding that a “reasonable time” has been exceeded (see, inter alia , Monnet v . France , judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 273, p. 12, § 30). In the instant case the Court notes that the Zagreb Municipal Court invited the applicant to submit all the documents necessary two months after she had filed her initial request with the court ’ s Land Registry Division. In the Court ’ s view this shows that the Municipal Court acted diligently.

As to the applicant ’ s behaviour, the Court observes that she failed to comply with the Municipal Court ’ s invitation to submit the necessary documents and that she thus prevented that court from proceeding with her request. The Court finds that the proceedings were therefore hindered primarily due to the applicant ’ s behaviour.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the delays in the proceedings are entirely attributable to the applicant.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

As to the Article 13 complaint, the Court notes that it is inextricably linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared inadmissible.

2. The applicant further complain ed under Article 1 of Protocol N o. 1 that her property rights were violated because her request to have her ownership entered into the land register was denied.

The Court recalls that the applicant ’ s request was dismissed because she had failed to submit the relevant documents and that the applicant is able to file a new request once she collects the necessary documentation.

In these circumstances, the Court finds that there has been no interference by the Croatian authorities with the applicant ’ s property rights.

It follows that her complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these re asons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention ;

Declares the application i nadmissible .

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President