Communicated on 18 December 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 69108/17 Oliver ŽULIĆ against Croatia lodged on 15 September 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant instituted proceedings against a bank claiming overpaid interest. After a change in the relevant legislation, the bank offered the applicant recalculation of the interest, which the applicant accepted and the parties concluded an annex to the original loan agreement, whereby the matter was resolved. The applicant consequently withdrew his court action, claiming costs and expenses he had incurred in the proceedings thus far. The first-instance court awarded him the costs, but the County Court ultimately held that the applicant had withdrawn his action following a settlement and that hence each party was to bear its own costs. The applicant then filed an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, both of which were declared inadmissible.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the failure to reimburse him incurred costs of the proceedings in the circumstances had violated his right of access to a court as well as his property rights.

He further complains: a) under Article 6 of the Convention about a violation of his right to legal certainty and the divergent case-law of the County Courts in identical cases to his own: he submitted a number of court decisions to show that in identical cases some County Courts awarded the costs sought, while others ordered each party to bear its own costs; b) under Article 14 of the Convention about discrimination in relation to those persons who had identical claims to his and who had been awarded reimbursement of their costs, and c) under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy against the divergent case-law of the county courts, given that the Supreme Court declared his appeal on points of law inadmissible.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the decision concerning the costs of proceedings in the applicant ’ s case violated his right of access to court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or his right to the enjoyment of possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (cf. Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013; Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016)?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the right to legal certainty been respected in view of the divergent case-law of the second-instance courts as regards costs of proceedings ( Beian v. Romania (no. 1) , no. 30658/05, 6 December 2007; Ştefănică and Others v. Romania , no. 38155/02, 2 November 2010)?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. Has the applicant been subject to discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, in that other persons in similar situations were reimbursed their costs of proceedings?