Communicated on 9 October 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 47685/13 Radovan BUVAČ against Croatia lodged on 12 July 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Radovan Buvač , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Umićević , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 28 April 2008 the daily newspaper “ B.hr .” published an article under the headline “Mob Attorney joins the Supervisory Board”, describing the applicant as an extortionist.

On 27 May 2008 the applicant ’ s representative made a request to the publisher for the publication of a correction of that information, as provided for by the Media Act. The publisher neither replied nor published a correction of the disputed information.

On 9 July 2008, after the expiry of the deadline to publish a correction, the applicant brought a civil action against the publisher for defamation before the Zagreb Municipal Court, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 10 July 2009 the publisher replied to the complaint and claimed in particular that the applicant had failed to submit a power of attorney with his request.

The Zagreb Municipal Court examined the applicant, who said that he had given permission to his representative to act on his behalf in the case against the publisher.

On 31 January 2012 the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu ) declared the applicant ’ s action inadmissible. The court decided that the request for the publication of a correction of the information had not been signed by a duly authorised person because the applicant had not proven that his representative had in fact submitted a power of attorney with the claim.

The relevant part of the decision reads:

“... Under section 22(2) of the Media Act, a person who has previously made a request to the publisher to publish a correction of disputed information, or issue an apology if a correction is not possible, shall have the right to bring a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in compliance with the Law on Obligations.

...

In his testimony, the claimant stated that he had granted a power of attorney to his counsel, Ms Lj ., authorising her to institute both criminal and civil proceedings for defamation ... He was present during the preparation of a draft of the request for a correction of the disputed information ...

...

This court does not accept the claimant ’ s testimony because the claimant has no direct knowledge of what was ultimately sent to the defendant ... On the other hand, the claimant ’ s statement concerning the granting of a power of attorney is of no relevance for the solution of the specific legal issue ... The claimant ’ s statement is in contradiction with the material evidence presented because one of the basic rules of communication is to indicate the documents that are attached to a submission ...

...

It follows that the claimant has not proved that the request for the publication of a correction of the disputed information sent to the defendant was accompanied by a power of attorney authorising his counsel, Lj.P ., to submit a request on his behalf ...

...

Given that the request in question for the publication of a correction of the disputed information was not signed by the claimant, but by his counsel, Lj.P ., and that it was sent without a power of attorney being enclosed, the claimant has not proved that he has properly requested the publication of a correction of the disputed information ... an action which is, pursuant to section 22(2) of the Media Act, a procedural requirement for bringing a civil action for non-pecuniary damage against the publisher ...”

On 19 November 2012 the Šibenik County Court ( Županijski sud u Šibeniku ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision.

On 14 March 2013 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that, as a result of the Zagreb Municipal Court ’ s excessive formalism when interpreting and applying relevant domestic law, he was denied access to court , contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the manner in which the Zagreb Municipal Court applied the provisions of the Media Act on the procedural requirements for bringing a claim before the court deprive the applicant of access to court?