CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 29 janvier 2004

.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 } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s292CCFD { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .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 } .s1970EC8C { width:197.47pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 1382/03 by Ivan and Danica LJUBIČIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29   January   2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Ivan Ljubičić and Ms Danica Ljubičić, are Croatian citizens, who live in Novska. They are represented before the Court by Mr   B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 5 July 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Novska Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Novskoj ) against the Novska Municipality for damages in respect of their confiscated property. Before the period to be considered by the Court, starting after 5   November 1997 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia, the court had already held several hearings, the last one on 23   April   1996. At the hearing on 3 September 1998 the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Novska Municipal Court. On 15 September 1999 the Novska Municipal Court declared that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. On 15 September 1999 the applicants appealed against the above decision. On 18 January 2000 the Sisak County Court ( Županijski sud u Sisku ) quashed the decision and remitted the case for a rehearing. At the hearing on 20 March 2001 the defendant asked the court to grant it a time limit in order to allow it to settle the case. On 24 April 2001 the defendant informed the court that it could not assess the value of the confiscated property. On 5 June 2001 the court sent an estimate of the value of the property to the applicants. At the hearing on 18 June 2001 the applicants informed the court that they did not wish to accept the offer based on the above estimate. The hearing scheduled for 10 September 2001 was adjourned because the applicants’ counsel did not appear. At the next hearing on 29 October 2001 the applicants asked the court to order a new expertise so as to establish the value of the confiscated property. On 26 November 2001 the applicants paid an advance on the costs of the expertise. On 28 January 2002 the expert appointed submitted his findings. At the hearing on 5 March 2002 the applicants’ counsel asked that the expert appointed by the court be requested to withdraw because he had already acted as an expert on behalf of the defendant. The court rejected the request as having been made out of time. The applicants then filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings. On 18 June 2002 the applicants asked the court to order that an agricultural expertise be carried out. At the next hearing on 22 July 2002 the applicants reiterated their objections to the estimate submitted to them on 5 June 2001 and asked the court to order that a new estimate be drawn up. Meanwhile, on 8 July 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint, finding that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time. On 27 August 2002 the applicants paid an advance on the costs of the estimate. On 24 September 2002 the court ordered that a new estimate be prepared. The proceedings are pending before the Novska Municipal Court. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant parts of section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (entered into force on 15 March 2002, published in the Official Gazette no. 49 of 3 May 2002 – hereinafter “the 2002 Constitutional Court Act” – Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske iz 2002 ) read as follows:   (1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...   (2) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph 1 of this section is accepted, the Constitutional Court shall determine a time-limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits...   (3) In a decision under paragraph 2 of this Article, the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the State budget within a term of three months from the date on which the party lodged a request for its payment. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. 2.     The applicants also complained that they had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings. THE LAW 1.     The applicants firstly complained that the length of the proceedings, instituted by them before the Novska Municipal Court and which are still pending, exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement, contrary to Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   2.     The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings because the Constitutional Court had found that the proceedings instituted by them had not exceeded a reasonable time. They relied on Article 13, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Court firstly recalls that the fact that a remedy does not lead to an outcome favourable to the applicant does not render a remedy ineffective. The Court further recalls that in its Slaviček and Nogolica decisions it found that section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Act of the Constitutional Court represented an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of proceedings which were still pending (see Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.), no.   20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII and Nogolica v.   Croatia (dec.), no.   77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII). The Court sees no reason to depart from its view expressed in the above decisions. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint concerning [Note1] the length of proceedings; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Søren Nielsen   Christos R OZAKIS   Registrar   President [Note1]   Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.