CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 mai 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s18215599 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sAB01ADED { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s5B5DE7F7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.45pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .s398E9019 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-variant:small-caps } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 58115/00 by Gojko ČULJAK and Others against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16   May   2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 1999, Having regard to the partial decision of 29   March   2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The first applicant, Mr Gojko Čuljak is a Croatian citizen, while the second applicant, Mr Branko Čuljak, is both a Croatian and an Australian citizen. They were born in 1958 and 1959, respectively, and live in Požega. The third applicant is a company for meat production - “Mesoprodukt”, owned by the first and second applicants. They are represented before the Court by Mr Ivan Žalac, a lawyer practising in Slavonski Brod. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms Lidija Lukina Karajković. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1991 the first and second applicants founded a company for meat production - “Mesoprodukt”, in Požega. The present case concerns several proceedings in respect of “Mesoprodukt”. 1.     Proceedings against the Požega and Slavonija County By virtue of the Požega County Veterinary Inspection ( veterinarski inspektor Ureda za gospodarstvo Županije požeško-slavonske ) decision of 26   May   1994, the applicant company was prohibited from slaughtering animals and producing meat for human consumption. Upon the applicant company’s appeal the Appeal Commission of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry ( Uprava za veterinarstvo poljoprivrede i šumarstva ) quashed the first instance decision on 14   June   1994. On 14 November 1994 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Požegi ) seeking payment of damages from the Požega and Slavonija County ( Županija Požeško-Slavonska ), due to the fact that it had been prohibited from producing meat from 26 May 1994 until 14 June 1994. Before the period to be taken into consideration by the Court, the Požega Municipal Court ordered that a financial expertise be carried out and invited the applicants to pay an advance for expenses related to the expert opinion. The applicants paid the advance in part. On 3 April 1998 the court invited the applicants to pay the remainder of the advance. On 4 May 1999 the appointed expert informed the court that the applicants had not paid the advance for the expenses. At the hearing on 7 May 1999 the court invited the Požega Tax Revenue Service to submit documentation about the applicant company’s income in 1993 and 1994 in order to carry out a complete financial expertise. In January 2000 the requested documents were submitted. On 10 April 2000 the court sent this documentation to the appointed expert. The applicants were invited to pay the advance for the expenses related to a new expertise. The next hearing scheduled for 23 January 2001 was adjourned at the request of the applicants’ counsel. At the hearing on 1 March 2001 the court stayed the proceedings because the applicants, although they received the notice of the hearing date, did not appear. 2.     Proceedings against the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Finance On 18 March 1994 the police seized a vehicle owned by the first applicant’s wife. The vehicle had been used for transportation of goods related to “Mesoprodukt”. On 21 April the vehicle was returned. On 14 November 1994 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court against the Ministry of Interior ( Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova ) and the Ministry of Finance ( Ministarstvo financija ), seeking payment of damages for the profits lost due to its inability to transport goods with the vehicle. On 14 August 1996 the Požega Municipal Court adopted judgment granting the applicants’ claim. Both parties appealed against the judgment. On 19 November 1997 the Požega County Court ( Županijski sud u Požegi ) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case for re-trial. The hearing scheduled for 16 June 1998 was adjourned due to the illness of the expert who was to be heard. The hearing scheduled for 4 June 1999 was adjourned due to the expert’s absence. According to the Government, on 29 October 1999 the Act on Changes of the Civil Obligations Act was introduced providing that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army or police when acting in their official capacity during the war in Croatia were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject. The Government alleges that pursuant to that Act the proceedings were stayed. According to the applicants, the above Act is not applicable to the proceedings in question and the Požega Municipal Court has never adopted any decision to stay the proceedings. However, there has been no hearing since 4 June 1999. 3.     Proceedings against the Ministry of Finance On 9 December 1993 the the Požega County Finance Police Office ( Postaja financijske policije za Požeško-slavonsku županiju ) ordered the applicant company to pay transfer and sale of goods tax ( porez na promet proizvoda i usluga ) in the amount of 179,837.52 Croatian Kunas (HRK) and 363,600.87 HRK in interest. As the applicants refused to pay those sums, the “Mesoprodukt’s” bank account was blocked. The applicant company’s ensuing appeals were successful and on 13   January 1997 the Ministry re-assessed the amount of tax to be paid to 64,955.00 HRK and 64,381,52 HRK in interest. The applicants paid those sums immediately after receiving this decision. Subsequently, on 19 November 1997 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court seeking payment of damages from the Ministry of Finance due to the fact that had the authorities done the tax calculation correctly the tax would have been paid on time. Thus, there would have had been no need for blocking the bank account of the company. On 9 December 1997 the defendant filed its submissions objecting to the applicants’ claim. The preliminary hearing scheduled for 10 December 1999 was adjourned due to the defendant’s absence. On 15 October 1998 the defendant submitted a detailed reply denying the applicants’ claim. The next hearing was held on 29 October 1998. On 15 October 1999 the court invited the applicants to pay the court fees. The applicants failed to do so. On 2 March 2000 the court informed the Tax Revenue Service that the applicants did not pay the court fees. At the hearing on 17 January 2001 the defendant asked the court to stay the proceedings until the applicants pay the court fees. The court invited the Tax Revenue Service to inform it whether the applicants had paid the fees. It also invited the Požega Commercial Court ( Trgovački sud u Požegi ) to submit documentation concerning the assets of the applicant company. On 6 March 2001 the Požega Commercial Court submitted the requested documentation. It appears that the proceedings are presently pending before the court of first instance. In respect of the above-mentioned three sets of civil proceedings the applicant company lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) pursuant to Section 59 § 4 of the 1999 Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske - hereinafter “the Constitutional Court Act”), requesting the speeding up of those proceedings. By decision of 4   May   2000 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint finding that the proceedings did not exceed the reasonable time requirement. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of three sets of civil proceedings. THE LAW The applicants complain that the three sets of civil proceedings instituted by them have not been concluded within a “reasonable time” as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Government contend that the subject matter of the applicants’ cases did not call for particular urgency in deciding them. They referred to the Court’s case-law arguing that the cases that did call for special urgency were those that related to family law matters or to payment of damages to the victims of traffic accidents, those that involved the interests of a great number of persons and cases concerning dismissal from work. As to the applicants’ behaviour they contend that they have significantly contributed to the delays in the proceedings. In one of the proceedings they failed to pay the court fees and thus prevented the court to proceed with the case. In the other proceedings the applicants have not paid the advance for the expenses related to the financial expertise. In the same proceedings the applicants asked the adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 23   January   2001, failed to submit written observations and did not appear at the hearing scheduled for 1 March 2001. As to the behaviour of the domestic authorities they contend that the courts dealing with the applicants’ cases showed due diligence. In the Government’s opinion the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because the delays are entirely attributable to the applicants and in these circumstances the State cannot be held responsible. The applicants submit that they were not able to pay the court fees and the advance for expenses related to the financial expertise because the bank account of the applicant company have been blocked for no reason. However, the fact that they have not paid the court fees cannot prevent the court from deciding their claims. The delays are entirely attributable to the domestic authorities because the hearings have been held rarely and the courts have been inactive. The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the remainder of the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.   Søren Nielsen   Christos R OZAKIS Deputy Registrar   President