Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 25 May 2020

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 319/19 and 1161/19 Neđeljko KALEMBER against Croatia and Nedjeljka BROZOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 December 2018 and 24 December 2018 respectively

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns civil proceedings which the applicants, brother and sister, instituted against the State seeking damages for the brutal killing of their parents in 1996 by two former Croatian soldiers. The applicants claimed that their parents ’ killing amounted to a terrorist act, within the meaning of the then newly-enacted Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija ), for which the State was liable. The domestic courts, including the Supreme Court, dismissed the applicants ’ claim, finding that the killing had not been politically motivated or aimed at causing fear and horror with citizens – a requirement for an act of violence to be characterised as a terrorist act under domestic law – but rather, that it had been committed without any particular motive or specific aim, as a result of deviant behaviour of two drunk individuals. The applicants were ordered to pay the State 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 4,080 euros (EUR)).

The applicants complain, under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the domestic courts ’ decision ordering them to pay for the State ’ s representation the amount that would be awarded to the opposing party as advocates ’ fee (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the civil proceedings complained of, on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered them to reimburse the State for the costs of those proceedings?

2. In respect of the costs that the applicants were ordered to pay to the State, has there been an interference with their peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

4. If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13 , 6 September 2016) so that the following criteria were satisfied:

(1 ) that the State was represented by the State Attorney ’ s Office and the costs of the State ’ s representation were calculated in an amount equal to an attorney ’ s fee;

(2 ) that the applicants ’ claim before the national courts at the time of lodging was not devoid of any substance or manifestly unreasonable;

(3) in the light of the applicants ’ individual financial situations, that the order to bear the costs at issue was a significant financial burden on them?