Communicated on 6 December 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 15430/18 Ivana PAJTAK SPEVAN against Croatia lodged on 26 March 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant ’ s predecessor and two other persons were injured parties in the criminal proceedings. They were all represented by the same lawyer. By a first-instance judgment, which became final and enforceable, the accused had been convicted and ordered to pay the injured parties the equivalent of approximately EUR 2,600 in Croatian kunas on account of the costs of their legal representation. However, in its judgment the criminal court had not indicated the names of the injured parties.

When the applicant ’ s predecessor sought enforcement of the decision on costs included in the criminal court ’ s judgment, the enforcement court dismissed her application for enforcement on the grounds that the judgment did not mention the names of the injured parties and that it was therefore unclear who the creditor was.

The applicant ’ s predecessor then asked the criminal court to rectify its judgment. The first-instance court granted her request and listed the names of the injured parties in the operative part of the judgment concerning the decision on costs. Upon the accused ’ s appeal, the second-instance court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for fresh examination as it found that:

- the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed only corrections of a transcript of a judgment and not of the original, and precluded rectification of a judgment after it became final;

- the criminal court ’ s judgment was sufficiently clear as to in respect of whom the costs had been awarded.

The applicant ’ s predecessor then withdrew her request for rectification and instituted civil proceedings against the State, seeking compensation for the damage caused by judicial malpractice. The domestic courts dismissed her claim finding that she had failed to lodge an appeal against the criminal court ’ s judgment omitting the injured parties ’ names. After her predecessor ’ s death, the applicant took over the proceedings and lodged a constitutional complaint which was declared inadmissible as the Constitutional Court found that it did not raise a constitutional issue.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the inability to enforce a final domestic judgment in her favour.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the refusal of the domestic courts to enforce the decision on costs included in the criminal court ’ s judgment in breach of the applicant ’ s right of access to a court or of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?