SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 63556/13 Ružica KOVAČ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Lemmens, President, Ksenija Turković , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 October 2013,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Ružica Kovač , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Rijeka. She was represented before the Court by Ms J. Hodžić , a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Principal proceedings

(a) The first set of enforcement proceedings

4. On an unspecified date in 1999 the Croatian Telecom company (hereinafter “the enforcement creditor”) instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant before the Poreč Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Poreču ) to recover unpaid telecommunications service charges in the amount of 16,231.68 Croatian kunas (HRK).

5. On 22 November 1999 that court issued a writ of execution ( rje šenje o ovrsi ) by seizure and sale of the debtor ’ s movable property.

6. By a decision of 13 June 2000 the court set aside that writ of execution, declined its territorial jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Rijeka Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Rijeci ).

7. That decision or the writ of execution was never served on the applicant.

(b) The second set of enforcement proceedings

8. On 23 November 2009 the enforcement creditor instituted the second set of enforcement proceedings before the Poreč Municipal Court against the applicant for the same debt. It relied on the writ of execution issued in the first set of enforcement proceedings ( pa ragraph 5 above) as the enforcement title and sought temporary seizure of funds on the applicant ’ s bank accounts.

9. On 2 March 2010 the court issued a decision to that effect.

10. On 26 August 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision. In her appeal she stated that she had learned of the both sets of enforcement proceedings as late as 23 August 2010 when, after realizing that her bank account had been blocked, her legal representative had consulted the case-file.

11. On 8 November 2011 the Pula County Court ( Županijski sud u Puli ) quashed the first-instance decision of 2 March 2010 and remitted the case.

12. In the resumed proceedings, by a decision of 27 December 2010 the Poreč Municipal Court established that the enforcement title had been set aside (see paragraph 6 above) and, accordingly, discontinued the enforcement proceedings.

13. Following the enforcement creditor ’ s appeal, on 23 March 2011 the Pula County Court quashed that decision and remitted the case.

14. In the fresh proceedings, on 24 February 2012 the enforcement creditor withdrew its application for temporary seizure whereupon by a decision of 20 April 2012 the Poreč Municipal Court concluded the proceedings .

2. The proceedings following the applicant ’ s request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time

15. Meanwhile, on 4 May 2011 the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Pula County Court complaining about the length of the above enforcement proceedings.

16. On 16 August 2011 that court dismissed her request. It examined only the length of the second set of enforcement proceedings and held that at that time they lasted only one year and some nine months, which could not be considered excessive.

17. The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia , that she had complained of the length of both sets of enforcement proceedings, taken together.

18. By a decision of 18 October 2012 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) granted the appeal, quashed the above decision but declared the applicant ’ s request inadmissible. That court established that the applicant in her request had complained only of the length of the second set of the enforcement proceedings. It held that those proceedings had not concerned determination of her civil rights and obligations and that, therefore, she could not seek protection of the right to a hearing within the reasonable time in respect of those proceedings.

19. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision.

20. On 21 March 2013 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible and served its decision on the applicant ’ s representative on 3 April 2013. The Constitutional Court held that the contested Supreme Court ’ s decision was not open to constitutional review.

COMPLAINT

21. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the two sets of enforcement proceedings, taken together.

THE LAW

22. The applicant complained that the overall length of the two sets of enforcement proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

23. The Government disputed the admissibility of the application by arguing that the applicant had failed to observe the six-month rule, that Article 6 of the Convention was inapplicable and that the application was in any event manifestly ill-founded.

24. The applicant contested those arguments.

25. The Court does not find it necessary to examine all inadmissibility objections raised by the Government or to reproduce the parties ’ arguments in (more) detail because the present application is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

26. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (see Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria , no. 58497/00, § 47, 8 June 2006 ), the Court considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 23 August 2010 when the applicant , in her own admission, learned of the both sets of enforcement proceedings (see paragraph 10 above). That period ended on 20 April 2012 when the Poreč Municipal Court concluded the second set of the proceedings (see paragraph 14 above). It thus lasted one year and some eight months before two levels of jurisdiction, which cannot be considered excessive.

27. It follows that this application is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Paul Lemmens              Deputy Registrar President