Communicated on 8 September 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32096/12 Dragan NOVAKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 April 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dragan Novaković , is a Croatian national, of Serbian ethnic origin, who was born in 1956 and lives in Glina .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 26 September 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action against the Sisak Municipality and the Sisak Market in the Sisak Municipal Court, seeking payment of a sum of money on account of his investments in certain premises. The applicant argued that in July 1991 he had left the town of Sisak for fear for his personal security and went to live in Glina , which was later on the temporarily occupied territories. When the Croatian army regained control of these territories in August 1995, the applicant left Croatia. He returned in 1996. Thus, he was not able to lodge his action within the five-year statutory time-limit.

On 30 January 2006 the Sisak County Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that it had become statutory barred. This judgment was upheld by the Sisak County Court on 8 January 2009 and the Supreme Court on 20 May 2009.

The national courts held that the applicant had left the town of Sisak of his own free will, that the town of Sisak had never been occupied and the courts therein functioned at all times. Therefore, there had been no “unsurmountable obstacles” for the applicant to lodge his civil action within the statutory limitation period.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 5 October 2011.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had no access to court in respect of his civil action for payment.

He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his civil claim.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have access to court in respect of his civil claim as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of his civil claim for payment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?