Published on 14 March 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32947/21 Lidija HORVAT against Croatia lodged on 18 June 2021 communicated on 21 February 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 9 December 2019 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court terminated the enforcement proceedings that the applicant as creditor instituted on her debtor’s real-estate. This occurred on the ground that the national agency in charge of the sale of the real-estate had informed that court that the applicant had failed to pay the costs of the sale after being invited to do so by an invitation published on the agency’s website.

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the appellate court did not address her arguments that an invitation to pay the costs of the sale had never been published on the agency’s website and that the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court had failed to verify that circumstance before terminating the enforcement.

She further complains that the termination of the enforcement proceedings breached her rights of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 and peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

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, did the appellate court address her arguments that an invitation to pay the costs of the sale of the real-estate had never been published on the agency’s website and that the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court had failed to verify that circumstance before terminating the enforcement?

If not, was the failure of the appellate court to address those arguments contrary to the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment, implied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Răchită v. Romania , no. 15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Zavodnik v. Slovenia , no. 53723/13, §§ 69-82, 21 May 2015)? Reference is made to the applicant’s arguments that the invitation to pay the costs of the sale was not published on the agency’s website and that in any event the posting of the invitation on the website could not be considered as an appropriate way of informing the creditors of such an important step in the enforcement proceedings.

3. In the circumstances, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s argument that the real-estate in question constituted the debtor’s sole possession and that due to the legislative changes she is unable to re-institute the enforcement proceedings and collect her debt.