Communicated on 24 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 40160/12 Vesna ZUBAC against Croatia lodged on 30 May 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Vesna Zubac , is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1959 and lives in Bijela . She is represented before the Court by Mr Ivica Ban, a lawyer practising in Dubrovnik.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 29 September 1992, the applicant ’ s father in law, Mr V. Z., represented by his wife, concluded a contract on exchange of his house in Dubrovnik, Croatia, for the one owned by H.A. and F.H. and situated in Trebinje , Republic of Srpska , Bosnia and Herzegovina.

On an unspecified date Mr V. Z. instituted civil proceedings before the Trebinje Municipal Court ( Osnovni sud u Trebinju ) against H.A. and F.H. in order to obtain a permission to register the property clause ( clausula intabulandi ).

On 20 April 2001 the Trebinje Municipal Court ordered H.A. and F.H. to issue clausula intabulandi to Mr V. Z.. The defenders obeyed the court ’ s order and issued clausula intabulandi to Mr V. Z..

On 14 August 2002 Mr M. Z., Mr V. Z. ’ s son, instituted civil proceedings before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Dubrovniku ) seeking the annulment of the impugned contract on exchange of the above-said houses. He claimed that the contract had been signed under duress because of the circumstances arising from the Homeland War in Croatia. He also claimed that his father ’ s signature on the power of attorney, based upon which his mother and the wife of Mr V. Z., signed the impugned contract on the latter ’ s behalf, had been forged. In his action, the plaintiff Mr M. Z. indicated the value of the claim at 10,000 Croatian Kunas (HRK). Later on, during the proceedings, he indicated the value of the claim at HRK 105,000.

On 27 September 2005 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court adopted a judgment dismissing the claim as unfounded and ordered Mr M. Z. to bear all costs and expenses of the opposing parties. It assessed the litigation costs, as well as the court fees, according to the value of the claim indicated at the hearing on 6 April 2005, namely HRK 105,000.

Mr M. Z. lodged an appeal with the County Court of Dubrovnik ( Županijski sud u Dubrovniku ).

On 1 October 2009 the second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the fist-instance judgment.

Mr M. Z. then lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court.

On 17 October 2010 M. Z. died. The proceedings were taken over by his wife, the applicant, as his heir.

On 30 March 2011 the Supreme Court declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris , finding that the value of the claim was below the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000. It held that the value of the dispute was the one indicated in the plaintiff ’ s civil action.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 10 November 2011 as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, complains that she was deprived of her right of access to the Supreme Court when it declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the manner in which the Supreme Court applied provisions of the Civil Procedure Act on the value of the claim deprive the applicant of access to the Supreme Court?