Communicated on 20 October 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 25149/13 Mato MRAZOVIĆ and others against Croatia lodged on 20 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the case

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

In 1984 the applicants brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court against company T., their employer, seeking payment of salary arrears in United States dollars (USD).

On 1 October 2002 the Zagreb Municipal Court allowed the applicants ’ claim in part, ordering the defendant to pay the applicants ’ salary arrears.

On 28 December 2005 the Zagreb Municipal Court adopted a supplementary judgment, ordering the defendant to pay interest on the salary arrears, in addition to the applicants ’ legal costs.

On 6 June 2006 the Zagreb County Court, upon an appeal by the defendant, upheld the first-instance judgment of 1 October 2002, while it quashed (in part) the supplementary judgment of 28 December 2005, and ordered a fresh examination of the case with regard to the costs of the proceedings. It held that the first-instance court should have applied the USD exchange rate which had been valid on the date of the first-instance judgment, and not a different rate for each procedural action.

On 4 May 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court ordered company T. to pay the applicants a further sum of 32,123.11 Croatian kunas (HRK) in respect of the costs of the proceedings.

Upon an appeal by the applicants, on 24 July 2007 the Zagreb County Court quashed the decision of the Zagreb Municipal Court and remitted the case, instructing the first-instance court to apply the USD exchange rate which had been valid on the date on which it had concluded the trial , rather than a different rate for each procedural action.

On 12 April 2011 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicants ’ claim, finding that the amount paid thus far to the applicants in respect of the costs of litigation was already sufficient, and that the relevant daily exchange rate should be applied for each procedural action.

On 13 September 2011 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the first-instance decision of 12 April 2011.

The applicants then lodged an “ordinary” appeal on points of law under section 381(1 )( 1) of the Civil Procedure Act and an “extraordinary” appeal on points of law under section 382(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

On 15 November 2011 the Supreme Court declared the applicants ’ appeals on points of law inadmissible. The “ordinary” appeal was declared inadmissible by reason of the value of the claim ( ratione valoris ). However, no reasons were given for declaring the applicants ’ “extraordinary” appeal inadmissible.

On 13 September 2012 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint by the applicants inadmissible.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right to a fair hearing was violated when the Supreme Court declared their appeal on points of law under section 382(2) of the Civil Procedure Act inadmissible without giving adequate reasons.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the Supreme Court deprive the applicants of their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention when it failed to give reasons for declaring their “extraordinary” appeal on points of law inadmissible?

Appendix