SPALLDI D.O.O. v. CROATIA
Doc ref: 39070/11 • ECHR ID: 001-178241
Document date: September 26, 2017
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 39070/11 SPALLDI d.o.o. against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Kristina Pardalos, President, Ksenija Turković, Tim Eicke, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 June 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant company, Spalldi d.o.o., is a limited liability company with its registered office in Zadar. It was represented before the Court by Ms T. Gregov, a lawyer practising in Zadar.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š.Stažnik.
3. The applicant company complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that it had been denied access to a court, as it was unable to contest the validity of the acknowledgment of service. It also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, that it had been deprived of an effective remedy against the enforcement order.
4. On 16 December 2013 the above complaints were communicated to the Government.
The circumstances of the case
5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Enforcement proceedings against the applicant company
6. Upon a request by private company M. on 23 August 2006, a public notary issued an enforcement order asking the applicant company to settle outstanding invoices in the amount of about 3.5 million Croatian kunas, as well as the costs and expenses of the enforcement proceedings, within eight days of the date of service.
7. The enforcement order was upheld by the Zadar Commercial Court ( Trgovački sud u Zadru ) on 16 October 2006 and by the High Commercial Court ( Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 17 April 2007.
8. On an unspecified date, the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint against the lower courts ’ decisions arguing, inter alia , that these had been contrary to the practice of the Supreme Court.
9. On 9 December 2010 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant company ’ s constitutional complaint.
2. Proceedings concerning the validity of the acknowledgment of service
10. In the meantime, the applicant company brought a civil action against company M. before the Zadar Commercial Court, seeking to have the acknowledgment of service declared invalid and to quash the enforcement order.
11. On 20 April 2015 the Zadar Commercial Court declared the applicant company ’ s civil action inadmissible. This decision was upheld by the High Commercial Court on 29 February 2016.
12. On 13 May 2016 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. On 30 January 2017 the Supreme Court remitted the case to the first-instance court.
13. On 21 February 2017 the Zadar Commercial Court stayed the proceedings. This decision became final on 28 March 2017.
3. The proceedings concerning the applicant company being struck out of the Court Register
14. On 6 December 2016 the Zadar Commercial Court struck the applicant company out of the Court Register for failing to make annual financial declarations and failing to provide relevant documentation for more than three years, as provided for under the relevant domestic law.
15. The applicant company ’ s subsequent appeal was dismissed as ill ‑ founded by the High Commercial Court on 26 April 2017.
16. By virtue of being struck out of the Court Register, the applicant company ceased legally to exist. No legal successor is known to exist.
COMPLAINTS
17. The applicant company complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that it had been denied access to a court, as it had been unable to contest the validity of the acknowledgment of service.
18. The applicant company also complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, that it had been deprived of an effective remedy against the enforcement order.
THE LAW
1. The parties ’ submissions
19. The Government proposed that the application be struck out of the Court ’ s list of cases on account of the fact that the applicant company had been struck out of the Court Register, and, in consequence, had ceased to exist.
20. The applicant company submitted that on 26 April 2017 the High Commercial Court had dismissed its appeal and upheld the decision of the Zadar Commercial Court of 6 December 2016, by which the applicant company had been struck out of the Court Register. It made no further comments.
2. The Court ’ s assessment
21. The Court observes that the application was lodged in 2011 under Article 34 of the Convention by a private company, Spalldi d.o.o., and that that company ceased legally to exist in 2017, and had no legal successor. It notes that this may constitute an “other reason” for which “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, provided that “respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto” does not require otherwise, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention.
22. As to the applicable legal principles, the Court reiterates that while, under Article 34 of the Convention, the existence of a “victim of a violation” is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, this criterion cannot be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the whole proceedings. As a rule, and in particular in cases which primarily involve pecuniary and, for this reason, transferable claims, the existence of other persons to whom that claim is transferred is an important criterion, but cannot be the only one. Human rights cases before the Court generally also have a moral dimension, which it must take into account when considering whether to continue with the examination of an application after the applicant has ceased to exist (see RF SPOL. S R.O. v. Slovakia , (dec.), 9926/03, 20 October 2010) . This is all the more so if the issues raised by the case transcend the person and the interests of the applicant (see OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v. Russia (dec.), no. 14902/04, § 441, 29 January 2009). This would be the case in particular where an application concerns the legislation or a legal system or practice of the defendant State (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 46, ECHR 2009 ).
Loading citations...23. The Court observes that there was no connection between the impugned proceedings and the collapse of the applicant company (in contrast see, for example, OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS , cited above, § 443; and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, § 80, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII (extracts)). Moreover, its complaint was not pecuniary in nature and is as such non-transferable.
24. The Court also notes that, following its dissolution, the applicant company acquired no legal successor.
25. In the light of the above considerations the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey , nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08 , § 56, 13 April 2010 ).
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court ’ s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 October 2017 .
Renata Degener Kristina Pardalos Deputy Registrar President