FIRST SECTION

Application no. 13274/11 Davorka PAVLOVIĆ and others against Croatia lodged on 3 February 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1990, I. brought an action against M.K. in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ), seeking eviction.

The applicants are legal heirs of I. and took over the proceedings as plaintiffs after his death. M.K. also died in the course of proceedings and I.K. replaced him as defendant.

On 12 June 2007 the concluding hearing before the Zagreb Municipal Court was held. On that hearing, the applicants requested the Municipal Court to award them the costs of proceedings. The applicants immediately submitted their specification of costs to the Municipal Court, requesting 14,786.40 Croatian kuna (HRK).

On the same day, the Zagreb Municipal Court accepted the applicants ’ action in part and ordered the eviction of I.K. It dismissed the applicants ’ action in part in which they had requested the performance of construction works on the flat and the payment of HRK 95,000. As regards the costs of proceedings, it ordered each party to bear its own costs, arguing that the applicants ’ action had been successful only in part.

On 10 October 2008 the Zagreb Civil Municipal Court ( Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu ) rendered a supplementary judgment, dismissing the defendant ’ s counter-claim.

On 2 February 2010 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) dismissed the applicants ’ and the defendant ’ s appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. As regards the costs of proceedings, the Zagreb County Court accepted the applicants ’ argument that the costs should have been awarded to them. However, the County Court noted that the applicants ’ representative had failed to submit a specification of costs ( troškovnik ) to the Zagreb Municipal Court. Consequently, the first-instance decision on the costs of proceedings was upheld as well.

On 23 September 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants ’ constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decision had not concerned the merits of the case and as such was not susceptible to constitutional review .

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain that they were erroneously deprived of the reimbursement of the costs of proceedings .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Has there been a violation of the applicant s ’ right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the national courts ’ decision concerning the costs of the proceedings at issue?

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

If so, was the interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, based in law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and if so was it proportionate to the aim pursued? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire case file.

Appendix