Communicated on 21 October 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 21550/12 Nevenka KUZMANOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 23 March 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nevenka Kuzmanović , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Varaždin . She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Juričan , a lawyer practising in Varaždin .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 9 March 2007 the applicant ’ s former husband M.K. brought a civil action in the Vara ž din Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Vara ž dinu ) asking that court to establish his share of a flat in Varaždin in one half and to order the applicant to allow him to register that share of ownership of the flat in the land registry. He set out the value of his claim at 101,000 Croatian kuanas (HRK).

The civil action was forwarded to the applicant for a reply but as she was absent her minor daughter, on whom the letter was served, did not inform her of that correspondence.

On 25 April 2007 the Varaždin Municipal Court adopted a judgment by default granting M.K. ’ s civil claim in full.

When the applicant learned about the judgment she lodged a request for reinstatement and an appeal before the Vara ž din County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Vara ž dinu ) challenging the first-instance judgment.

On 20 October 2009 the Varaždin County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded.

On 30 November 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) challenging the lower courts ’ judgments. It appears that thus far in the proceedings Mr M.K. ’ s indication of the value of his claim had not been questioned at any level.

On 31 May 2010 the Supreme Court declared the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law inadmissible as incompatible ratione valoris . It interpreted M.K. ’ s civil claim as two separate actions: one, for the establishment of his share in the flat; and the other, for obtaining an order securing the registration in the land registry of his ownership in that share. The Supreme Court thus divided the value of the claim by half and held that the value of HRK 50,500 did not reach the minimum ratione valoris threshold of HRK 100,000 (approximately EUR 13,700) for an appeal on points of law.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing that M.K. ’ s claim had two aspects which could not be separated from one another, and that the Supreme Court ’ s decision finding that the case concerned two claims of HRK 50,500 had therefore been unreasonable.

On 9 February 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 5 March 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the lack of fairness of the civil proceedings leading to the restriction of her property rights and lack of access to the Supreme Court in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 31 May 2010 dismissing her appeal on points of law on the grounds of ratione valoris entail a limitation on her right of access to a court that was incompatible with that provision (see, for example, Kozlica v. Croatia , no. 29182/03, §§ 32-33, 2 November 2006; Balažoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45117/08 , §§ 29-34, 25 April 2013; and Egić v. Croatia , no. 32806/09, §§ 50-59, 5 June 2014)? In that connection, on what basis did the Supreme Court reach its conclusion regarding the estimated value of the dispute claim?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of this provision (see Vulakh and Others v. Russia , no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012)?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.