FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 1393/03 by Marija HAJDUKOVIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mr G. Bonello , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 December 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Marija Hajduković, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1939 and lives in Sesvetska Sela, Croatia. She is represented before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 14 October 1992 the applicant filed a civil action with the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the insurance company C.

Before the period to be taken into consideration by the Court, i.e. 5 November 1997, the Zagreb Municipal Court had adopted a judgment allowing the applicant’s claim in part. The defendant appealed against the judgment on 12 March 1997.

On 8 September 1998 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ), as the appellate court, partly upheld the first instance judgment and partly remitted the case for rehearing.

At the hearing on 19 April 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court heard a medical expert. It was also decided that a further expert opinion was needed.

On 3 July 1999 the case-file was forwarded to the expert appointed.

On 26 April 2001 the expert submitted his findings.

The expert’s opinion was served on the applicant on 15 May 2001.

The hearing scheduled for 21 December 2001 was adjourned because not all of the experts summoned to that hearing appeared.

At the next hearing on 15 January 2002 several experts agreed an opinion.

On 16 January 2002 the applicant’s counsel submitted comments on the experts’ opinion.

On 24 January 2002 the court asked the applicant to pay an advance on the costs of an additional expertise.

On 19 February the applicant informed the court that she had paid the advance.

The applicant then filed a constitutional complaint pursuant to section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the proceedings.

On 14 November 2002 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) rejected the complaint, finding that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time.

The proceedings are presently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant parts of section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (entered into force on 15 March 2002, published in the Official Gazette no. 49 of 3 May 2002 – hereinafter “the 2002 Constitutional Court Act” – Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske iz 2002 ) read as follows:

(1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...

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

(3) In a decision under paragraph 2 of this Article, the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the State budget within a term of three months from the date on which the party lodged a request for its payment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

2. The applicant also complained that she had no effective remedy in respect of the length of proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicant firstly complained that the length of the proceedings, instituted by her before the Zagreb Municipal Court and which are still pending, exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:

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

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant further complained that she had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings because the Constitutional Court had found that the proceedings instituted by her had not exceeded a reasonable time. She relied on Article 13, which 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.”

The Court firstly recalls that the fact that a remedy does not lead to an outcome favourable to the applicant does not render a remedy ineffective.

The Court further recalls that in its Slaviček and Nogolica decisions it found that section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Act of the Constitutional Court represented an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of proceedings which were still pending (see Slaviček v. Croatia ( dec .), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII and Nogolica v. Croatia ( dec .), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).

The Court sees no reason to depart from its view expressed in the above decisions.

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

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning [Note1] the length of proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos R OZAKIS Registrar President

[Note1] Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.