SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 65559/13 Ratko KOVAČIĆ 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, Mr Ratko Kovačić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Čavle . He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Margan , 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. Minor offences proceedings

4. On 17 January 2008 the police authorities instituted minor offences proceedings ( prekršajni postupak ) against the applicant before the Rijeka Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Rijeci ) for driving through a red light and for not wearing a seat belt.

5. On 9 May 2008 that court issued a penal order ( prekršajni nalog ) against the applicant whereby he was found guilty of two traffic-related minor offences and sentenced to a fine of 1,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) [1] . It also imposed a protective measure ( zaštitna mjera ) by which he was prohibited to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two months.

6. The order was never (properly) served on the applicant. Therefore, he learned of the proceedings as late as on 22 September 2010 when the police officers, in the execution of the order, took away his driving licence with a view to making a note in it about the above protective measure.

7. The applicant then challenged the penal order. Even though the Rijeka Minor Offences Court initially, on 7 December 2011, refused to set it aside, that court eventually did so on 16 March 2012 after the High Minor Offences Court ( Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske ) allowed the applicant ’ s appeal, quashed the initial decision and remitted the case.

8. In the fresh proceedings, the Rijeka Minor Offences Court by the judgement of 27 April 2012 dismissed the charges against the applicant because the prosecution had in the meantime become time-barred. In the absence of appeals against that part of the judgment (the applicant appealed against the decision on costs only), it became final on 17 May 2012.

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

9. Meanwhile, on 24 April 2012 the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the High Minor Offences Court complaining about the length of the above minor offences proceedings.

10. By a decision of 3 September 2012 that court found a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him HRK 1,000 [2] in compensation.

11. The applicant appealed arguing that the compensation awarded was too low.

12. By a decision of 4 December 2012 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.

13. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court ’ s decision.

14. 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 8 April 2013. The Constitutional Court held that the contested Supreme Court ’ s decision was not open to constitutional review.

COMPLAINTS

15. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the overall length of the above minor offences proceedings.

THE LAW

16. The applicant complained that the length of the minor offences 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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

17. The Government disputed the admissibility of the application by arguing that the applicant had failed to observe the six-month rule, that he was not a victim of the violation complained of and that the application was, in any event, manifestly ill-founded.

18. The applicant contested those arguments.

19. 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.

20. Having regard to the case-law on the matter (see, mutatis mutandis , Innes v. France , no. 28145/95 , Commission decision of 25 May 1998, Decisions and Reports (DR) 93-A, pp. 50 and 61; and Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria , no. 58497/00, § 47, 8 June 2006 ), the Court considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 22 September 2010 when the applicant , in his own admission, learned of the proceedings in question (see paragraph 6 above). That period ended on 17 May 2012 when the Rijeka Minor Offences Court ’ s judgement of 27 April 2012 became final (see paragraph 8 above). It, thus, lasted one year and some eight months before two levels of jurisdiction, which cannot be considered excessive.

21. It follows that this complaint 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

[1] Approximately 206 euros (EUR) at the time.

[2] Approximately EUR 134 at the time.