Communicated on 12 January 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no 25605/15 Aleksander MARKOVIĆ against Croatia and 5 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Croatian nationals, with the exception of the second applicant (application no. 31796/15) which is a limited liability company incorporated under Croatian law. The applicants ’ personal details, the names of their representatives and the details regarding the length of the impugned proceedings are indicated the table annexed below.

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants were parties to civil (applications nos. 31796/15, 39535/15, 9284/16 and 56775/16), criminal (application no. 35262/15) or enforcement proceedings (application no. 25605/15).

On various dates the applicants lodged requests for protection of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the presidents of the courts before which their proceedings were pending. Even though that remedy under the 2013 Courts Act is purely acceleratory, three applicants (applications no. 31796/15, 35262/15 and 39535/15) also sought to be awarded compensation for the excessive length of their proceedings.

In two of the six cases the applicants ’ requests were either dismissed (application no. 25605/15) or declare d inadmissible (application no. 31796/15). After their subsequent appeals against the first-instance decisions were dismissed, those two applicants each lodged constitutional complaints, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on the ground that the decisions complained of were not open to constitutional review.

In four (applications no. 35262/15, 39535/15, 9284/16 and 56775/16) of the six cases the applicants ’ requests for the acceleratory remedy were granted and the court presidents ordered the judges hearing the applicants ’ cases to give decisions within specific time-limits. In two of those four cases where the applicants also sought compensation (applications no. 35262/15 and 39535/15) the court presidents dismissed that part of the applicants ’ requests. The applicant in case no. 35262/15 appealed against such a decision but his appeal was dismissed.

The judges hearing the applicants ’ cases complied with the orders by the court presidents and adopted judgments within specified time-limits, save in the application no. 56775/16 where the time-limit was exceeded by eighteen days.

This opened a possibility for that applicant to lodge a request for payment of appropriate compensation, a combined (acceleratory-compensatory) remedy under the 2013 Courts Act, and seek compensation before the higher court for the excessive length of her civil proceedings. However, her request for payment of appropriate compensation was dismissed with an explanation that under the 2013 Courts Act those whose requests for acceleratory remedy had been granted and the judges had complied with the order to deliver judgments within the given time-limits, were not entitled to compensation. She fell into that category because in her case the delay in complying with such time-limit had been negligible. That applicant ’ s appeal against that decision was dismissed, whereas her subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 30 March 2016 by the Constitutional Court on the ground that the decision complained of was not open to constitutional review.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Novak v. Croatia ( dec. ), no. 7877/14, §§ 22-27, 7 July 2016 and Vrtar v. Croatia , no. 39380/13 , § § 63-64 and 78, 7 January 2016.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time on account of the excessive length of their civil, criminal or enforcement proceedings, which was not remedied at the domestic level as they did not receive any compensation for it.

2. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 25605/15 alleges further that he was denied an effective remedy in respect of his complaint concerning the excessive length of proceedings.

3. Lastly, the applicant in application no. 56775/16 complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the excessive length of the civil proceedings in question, which concerned division of matrimonial property, also violated her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

QUESTIONS

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Having regard to the fact that none of the applicants obtained compensation for the length of the proceedings complained of, were the remedies they resorted to effective, as required by Article 13 thereof (see, for example, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC] no. 64886/01, § § 74-76, ECHR 2006 ‑ V )?

2. Was the length of the proceedings in the applicants ’ cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION

Was the length of the proceedings in the case no. 56775/16 in breach of the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence/registered office

Represented by

Type of proceedings

Period to be taken into consideration

(and number of instances)

Completed

or

pending

25605/15

25/05/2015

Aleksander MARKOVIĆ

10/12/1936

Zagreb

Renata

DOZET DASKAL

Enforcement proceedings

Four and a half years

pending

31796/15

23/06/2015

STAR NET SOFTWARE d.o.o .

Zagreb

Svetlana MAROHNIĆ

Civil proceedings

Six years and eight months

before one instance

pending

35262/15

14/07/2015

Vigor KOMAR

09/12/1949

Rijeka

Vladimir MARGAN

Criminal proceedings (civil party)

Six years and four months

before three instances

completed

(30 June 2016)

39535/15

03/08/2015

Franjo MARTINOVIĆ

04/05/1941

Sisak

NA

Civil proceedings

Six years

before two instances

pending

9284/16

08/02/2016

Vlado PERIĆ

24/11/1962

Sesvete

Lidija HORVAT

Civil proceedings

Eight years and five months

before two instances

completed

(23 August 2016)

56775/16

22/09/2016

Marija HORVAT

24/02/1965

Vir

Vesna

Å NUR

Civil proceedings

Four years and eleven months

before two instances

completed

(12 October 2015)