Published on 6 December 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 20805/20 Zlatan LUKEŽIĆ against Croatia lodged on 5 May 2020 communicated on 17 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the administrative court’s refusal to reimburse the applicant’s costs of judicial review (administrative-dispute) proceedings.

In particular, the applicant brought an action for judicial review in an administrative court with a view to forcing the relevant administrative authority to comply with its statutory obligation to decide on his appeal within 60 days. Shortly after the institution of those judicial review proceedings the relevant administrative authority decided on the applicant’s appeal whereupon the administrative court discontinued the judicial review proceedings.

The applicant sought reimbursement of costs of those proceedings but his claim for costs was dismissed on the grounds that the relevant legislation provided that each party had to bear its own costs in the event judicial review proceedings were discontinued.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint which the Constitutional Court in a decision of 22 October 2019 declared inadmissible on the grounds that decisions on costs were not open to constitutional review. It did so even though in the decisions no. U-III-2291/2018 of 19 June 2019, no. U-III-559/2019 of 19 July 2019 and U-III-4420/2019 of 17 September 2020 it quashed such decisions on costs in cases similar to that of the applicant as being contrary to the right of access to a court guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the administrative court’s refusal to reimburse the applicant’s costs of judicial review proceedings in breach of his right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zustović v. Croatia , no. 27903/15, §§ 96-111, 22 April 2021, and Černius and Rinkevičius v. Lithuania , nos. 73579/17 and 14620/18, §§ 65-74, 18 February 2020)?

2. Was the Constitutional Court’s case-law inconsistent given that it declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision on costs inadmissible whereas in cases no. U-III-2291/2018 of 19 June 2019, no. U-III-559/2019 of 19 July 2019 and U-III-4420/2019 of 17 September 2020 it quashed decisions on costs in cases similar to that of the applicant? If so, was that divergence in the case-law in breach of the principle of legal certainty, inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Beian v. Romania (no. 1) , no. 30658/05, ECHR 2007 ‑ V (extracts))?