FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ZGLAVNIK v. CROATIA

( Application no. 28018/10 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

24 July 2012

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Zglavnik v. Croatia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ) , sitting as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Khanlar Hajiyev , Julia Laffranque , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2012 ,

Delivers the following judgment , which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 28018/10) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national , Ms Zvjezdana Zglavnik , ( “the applicant”) , on 28 April 2010 .

2 . The applicant was represented by Ms V. Pušić Miličević , a lawyer practising in Zagreb . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent , M s Š. Stažnik .

3 . The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which s he was a party was excessive.

4 . On 6 July 2011 the Vice- President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government . In accordance with Protocol No.14 , the application was allocated to a Committee of three judges. It was also decided that the Committee would rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1 of the Convention).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5 . The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Osijek .

6 . On 11 December 2002 the applicant sought enforcement of a monetary obligation stipulated in a notar y deed ( javnobilježnička isprava ) against Mr S.T. before the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ).

7 . On 10 April 2003 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution by seizure and sale of S.T. ’ s immovable property in satisfaction of the applicant ’ s claim of 186 , 278.40 Croatian kunas (HRK). T he proceedings are still pending.

8 . On 20 October 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time ( zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku ) with the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ).

9 . On 25 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a hearing within reasonable time , awarded her HRK 6 , 000 in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to complete the enforcement within seven months of service of its decision.

10 . Following an appeal by the applicant , on 2 September 2009 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) awarded her additional HRK 2 , 000 in compensation. The Supreme Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 21 September 2009.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

11 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” r equirement , 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... ”

A. Admissibility

12 . The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

13 . The period to be taken into consideration began o n 11 December 2002 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted for nine years and six months at one level of jurisdiction.

14 . 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 , for example , Frydlender v. France [GC] , no. 30979/96 , § 43 , ECHR 2000-VII ; Mačinković v. Croatia , no. 29759/04, § 37 , 7 December 2006 ).

15 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see , for example, Oreb v. Croatia , no. 9951/06, 23 October 2008 ; and Alagić v. Croatia , no. 17656/07 , 11 February 2010 ). Having regard to its case -law on the subject , the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto , and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial rep ara tion to be made , the Court shall , if necessary , afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

17 . The applicant claimed 72 , 000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

18 . The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis and taking into account the amount granted by the national courts , it awards award her EUR 3 ,700 under that head.

B. Costs and expenses

19 . The applicant also claimed EUR 405 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 810 for those incurred before the Court.

20 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law , the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 170 for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and the s um cla i med in full for the proceedings before the Court .

C. Default interest

21 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank , to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS , THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the application admissible;

2 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months, the following amounts , to be converted into Croatian kuna s at the rate applicable at the date of settlement :

( i ) EUR 3 ,700 ( three thousand seven hundred euros ) , plus any tax that may be chargeable , in respect of non- pecuniary damage;

(ii ) EUR 980 ( nine hundred eighty euros ), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant , in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage poin ts;

4 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English , and notified in writing on 24 July 2012 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

André Wampach Peer Lorenzen Deputy Registrar President