Communicated on 3 July 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 7877/14 Mihaela NOVAK against Croatia lodged on 10 January 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mihaela Novak, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Selnica. She is represented before the Court by Ms M. Drča, an advocate practising in Zagreb.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 27 February 2008 the applicant sustained an injury at work.

1. Principal proceedings

On 13 September 2010 the applicant brought a civil action in the Čakovec Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Čakovcu ) against her employer, company I., seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Even though on 5 January, 25 May, 17 October and 20 December 2011 the applicant had urged the court to schedule a hearing, the first hearing in the case was held only on 12 March 2013. Before that date the court had decided to obtain an expert opinion and, after having received it, forwarded it to the applicant.

By a judgment pronounced on 2 June 2014 the Municipal Court ruled for the applicant and awarded her 44,840 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation together with the accrued sta tutory default interest and HRK 18,300 in costs.

2. The proceedings following the applicant ’ s request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time

On 1 October 2013 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the President of the ÄŒakovec Municipal Court. She relied on section 65 of the 2103 Courts Act.

On 1 November 2013 the President issued a decision holding that the applicant ’ s request was well-founded and ordering the judge appointed to hear the case to give a decision in the above civil proceedings within six months.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Court of Act ( Zakon o sudovima , Official Gazette no. 28/13), which entered into force on 14 March 2013, read as follows:

VI. PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO A HEARING WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME

Section 63

“A party to judicial proceedings which considers that the competent court did not decide within a reasonable time on its rights or obligations, or on a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence, shall have the right to judicial protection in accordance with this Act.”

Section 64

“(1) The legal remedies for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time are:

1. The request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time,

2. The request for payment of appropriate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

(2) In the proceedings for deciding the requests referred to in paragraph 1 of this section the rules of non-contentious procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis , and, in principle, no hearing shall be held.”

Section 65

“(1) The request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time shall be lodged with the court before which the proceedings are pending.

(2) The request shall be decided by the President of the court unless he or she is the judge sitting in the case, in which situation the request shall be decided by the Vice-President of the court.

(3) The President of the court shall, within 15 days of the receipt of the request, demand the judge sitting in the case [to submit] a report on the length of the proceedings and the reasons why [they] have not been completed, as well as an opinion on the period within which the case could be decided. The President of the court may himself or herself inspect the case-file.

(4) The judge sitting in the case shall submit the report immediately, but no later than 15 days from the time the President of the court demanded him to do so.

(5) In deciding on the request the President of the court shall in particular take into account the type of the case, [its] factual and legal complexity, the conduct of the parties and the court.

(6) The President of the court shall decide on the request within 60 days of its receipt.”

Section 66

(1) If the President of the court finds the request well-founded, he or she shall specify, as rule, a time-limit of maximum six months within which the judge must decide the case, unless the circumstances of the case require setting a longer time-limit. The decision finding the request well-founded does not have to be reasoned and cannot be appealed against.

(2) If the judge does not decide the case within the specified time-limit, he or she must within 15 days of its expiry, give reasons for that [omission] in a written report to be submitted to the President of the court. The President of the Court shall without delay forward the judge ’ s report and his or her [own] observations to President of the immediately higher court and to the Ministry of Justice.”

Section 67

“(1) If the President of the court finds the request unfounded, it shall dismiss it by a decision against which the [requesting] party shall have the right to appeal within eight days of the receipt of the decision.

(2) The [requesting] party shall have the right to appeal also when the President of the court, within 60 days from receiving it, does not decide on the request.

(3) The appeal shall be decided by the President of the immediately higher court. If the request concerns the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, the appeal shall be decided by a panel of three judges of that court. The President of the immediately higher court or the panel may dismiss the appeal as unfounded and uphold the first-instance decision or reverse [that] decision.”

Section 68

(1) If the court does not decide on the case referred to in section 65 of this Act within the specified time-limit, the [requesting] party may within a further period of six months lodge a request for payment of appropriate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the immediately higher court.

(2) If the request concerns the proceedings pending before the High Commercial Court, the High Administrative Court or the High Court for Administrative Offences, the request shall be decided by the Supreme Court.

(3) The request referred to in paragraph 1 of this section shall be decided by a decision of a single judge.

(4) If the request concerns the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, the request shall be decided by a panel of three judges of that court.

(5) Immediately higher court shall decide on the request within six months.”

Section 69

“(1) Immediately higher court or the panel of the Supreme Court shall specify the time-limit within which the court before which the proceedings are pending must decide the case, and shall award [the requesting party] appropriate compensation for the violation of his or her right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

(2) The total amount of appropriate compensation awarded in one case may not exceed 35,000 Croatian kunas.

(3) An appeal, to be lodged within eight days with the Supreme Court, lies against the decision on the request for payment of adequate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable. The appeal shall be decided by a panel of three judges of that court, and, if the decision was rendered by the panel of the Supreme Court referred to in section 68 paragraph 4 of this Act, the appeal shall be decided by a panel of five judges of that court.

(4) The decision awarding appropriate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time shall immediately after becoming final be forwarded to the President of the court before which the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time occurred, the President of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice.

(5) The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 of this section shall be paid out of the State budget.

(6) If the case referred to in paragraph 1 of this section is not decided within the specified time-limit, the court president must within 15 days of its expiry, give reasons for that [omission] in a written report to be submitted to the President of the immediately higher court and the Ministry of Justice.”

Section 70

“If before the European Court of Human Rights proceedings have been instituted for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time and the Government ’ s representative before the European Court of Human Rights has requested information on the case from the [domestic] court before which the proceedings [complained of] are pending, that court shall inform the President of the immediately higher court, the President of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice of the Government representative ’ s request and of the reasons for the protracted [character of the] proceedings.”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the above civil proceedings.

2. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective remedy for her length complaint and, in particular, that the remedies provided in sections 63-70 of the 2013 Courts Act of 2013 cannot be considered effective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the length of the civil proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her length complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 thereof? In particular, can the remedies for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time introduced by the 2013 Courts Act be considered effective within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, as interpreted in the Court ’ s case-law (see, for example, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC] no. 64886/01, § § 74-76, ECHR 2006 ‑ V )? More specifically:

(a) Can the court president grant the “request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time” as the acceleratory remedy, before the length of proceedings complained of becomes excessive, that is, in case of impending violation of that right?

(b) I s the “request for payment of appropriate compensation”, as the compensatory remedy provided by the Courts Act, available only in cases where the judge sitting in the case did not comply with the time-limit for deciding the case specified by the court president in the decision granting the “request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time” as the acceleratory remedy?

3. The Government is also invited to provide the Court with decisions rendered in the application of sections 63-70 of the 2013 Courts Act.