Communicated on 3 July 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 38462/14 Dragica KOMÅ O against Croatia lodged on 13 May 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Dragica Komšo, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Benkovac.

The circumstances of the case

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

On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant moved with her husband and two children from Drvar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, to Benkovac, Croatia.

In Drvar, the applicant ’ s husband owned a small retail store which had been robbed and damaged at the beginning of 2005, just before the applicant ’ s family ’ s removal to Benkovac. According to a certificate issued by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 4 September 2008, the retail store had debt related to taxes and other public contributions in the amount of 9,605.21 convertible marks (BAM). The applicant submitted that her husband was not able to pay that debt and was therefore not able to liquidate the business.

In 2005 the Benkovac Social Welfare Centre ( Centar za socijalnu skrb Benkovac ) instituted ex officio proceedings for granting the applicant ’ s family monetary aid on account of their poor financial situation.

On 4 May 2005 the applicant ’ s family was granted the monetary aid.

On an unspecified date in 2005 the Benkovac Social Welfare Centre received information from an anonymous source that the applicant ’ s husband had had a retail store in Drvar.

The applicant admitted to that fact but argued that the store was in fact closed and did not provide any source of income.

On 27 September 2005 the Benkovac Social Welfare Centre discontinued the payment of the monetary aid.

On 12 March 2007 the Benkovac Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Benkovcu ; the “State Attorney ’ s Office”), relying on the fact that, at the moment when the monetary aid had been granted, the applicant had failed to disclose that her husband owned a retail store in Drvar, lodged a civil action against the applicant in the Benkovac Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Benkovcu ) seeking compensation of 8,612 Croatian kunas (HRK), which she had received as monetary aid.

During the proceedings the applicant argued that in fact the store was closed but that her husband was not able to close it, and that they had not had any financial means for supporting themselves and their children.

On 19 September 2011 the Benkovac Municipal Court ordered the applicant to repay HRK 8,612, together with the statutory default interest, and to pay HRK 5,875 of costs and expenses of the proceedings. It held that, whereas the applicant ’ s arguments concerning her husband ’ s store could in fact be true, the fact remains that she had not disclosed that information and therefore she should repay the aid she had been given.

The applicant appealed before the Zadar County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zadru ) reiterating her previous arguments.

On 19 June 2013 the Zadar County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on the grounds that she had not disclosed the fact that her husband owned a retail store, and that her arguments concerning the real existence of that store and her poor financial situation were of no relevance.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 17 December 2013 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the domestic courts, without taking into account all the circumstances of her case, unjustifiably ordered her to repay the monetary aid.

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, was the principle of equality of arms and adversariality respected as regards the domestic courts ’ assessment of the circumstances of the applicant ’ s case?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?

In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?

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