Published on 25 July 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 33577/21 Danica KRUNIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 June 2021 communicated on 6 July 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the unfairness of the proceedings for the recognition of a divorce judgment adopted in 1994 by a court in the part of Croatia which was at the time outside the control of the Croatian authorities, namely by a court of the so-called Republic of Serbian Krajina.

On 23 November 2016 the Croatian Pension Fund granted the applicant a survivor’s (family) pension after the death of her husband in November 2015.

However, subsequently it came to the Fund’s attention that the applicant’s marriage had been dissolved by a final judgment adopted in 1994 by a court in the territory of Croatia which at the time had not been under the control of Croatian authorities.

All decisions and individual legal acts, including judgments, adopted by judicial or other public authorities in that territory were declared valid in Croatia by the entry into force of the Validation Act ( Zakon o konvalidaciji ) in 1997. However, anyone having a legal interest could institute relevant proceedings and seek that a specific decision or individual legal act be declared compatible with the Croatian legal order or contrary to it.

In September 2018 the Croatian Pension Fund instituted such proceedings asking the relevant court to declare that the judgment dissolving the applicant’s marriage was compatible with the Croatian legal order. The applicant and the State Attorney’s Office objected arguing that the divorce judgment had been contrary to Croatian family law at the time. She further contended that the judgment was contrary to the Croatian legal order also because the divorce proceedings had been unfair. In particular, she submitted that she had not been present at the hearing of 18 January 1994 or served with the judgment in question and thus could not have appealed against it. In this regard she proposed to obtain an opinion from an expert in graphology with a view to proving that she had not signed the minutes of the hearing or the judgment delivery receipt. The domestic courts eventually allowed the Croatian Pension Fund’s request and declared the divorce judgment compatible with the Croatian legal order whereupon the Fund set aside its decision granting her a survivor’s pension.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the recognition proceedings. Specifically, she complains that the domestic courts refused to take the evidence proposed by her and that they failed to address her argument that the divorce judgment was contrary to Croatian family law.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings for the recognition of the divorce judgment, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the domestic courts duly satisfy themselves that the proceedings resulting in the divorce judgment fulfilled the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (see Pellegrini v. Italy , no. 30882/96, ECHR 2001-VIII)?

(b) Did the refusal of the domestic courts to take the evidence proposed by the applicant render the proceedings unfair?

(c) Did the domestic courts examine the applicant’s argument as to why the divorce judgment was contrary to Croatian family law at the time? If they had not, was their failure to do so contrary to the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment, implied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Jaćimović v. Croatia , no. 22688/09, 31 October 2013; Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303 ‑ A; Hiro Balani v. Spain , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303 ‑ B, and Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 36815/03, 14 January 2010)?