CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juillet 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC790D588 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s86725BB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5BB2FE02 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s36EA9DD { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5F2389FD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7D2D15E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s19426575 { height:33.95pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s57165D7A { height:28.05pt } .s3667E7A9 { height:4.65pt } .s57BD5D7A { height:28.75pt } .s352FB0A7 { height:17.25pt } .s2541E78A { height:13.9pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s786FBAFF { width:91.15pt } .s645B9B33 { width:48.95pt } .sCCEDB0B { width:10.95pt } .s49453E7F { width:57.85pt } .s5DF501C2 { width:84.9pt } .sA15DE78A { height:17.1pt } .sF71DB0A7 { height:10.15pt } .sE901E78A { height:11.7pt } .s14C006F6 { height:8.95pt } .s14C00757 { height:8.85pt } .sE8AF060D { height:5.75pt } .s2B956468 { height:7.25pt } .s831CE78A { height:14.5pt } .sE3051F60 { width:22.9pt } .s210BDAA6 { width:40.85pt } .s6309BB19 { width:31.05pt } .s4D863EE4 { width:47.95pt } .s9A179BFA { width:95.85pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC724407C { width:176.79pt; display:inline-block } .s330E12DF { width:11.11pt; display:inline-block } .sFE658DBA { width:226.71pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION           CASE OF KLAUZ v. CROATIA   (Application no. 28963/10)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   18 July 2013     FINAL   09/12/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Klauz v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 28963/10) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Ivan Klauz (“the applicant”), on 30 April 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms A. Šutalo, an advocate practising in Valpovo. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that the costs of civil proceedings he had been ordered to pay to the State had been higher than the compensation for ill-treatment he had been awarded in those proceedings. 4.     On 21 February 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Donji Miholjac. 6.     On 25 January 1997 the applicant was arrested and brought to a police station where, during a questioning session that lasted four hours, he was beaten by a police officer, M.B. A.     Criminal proceedings 7.     On 28 January 1997 the physician who examined the applicant after the incident filed a criminal report with the relevant police authorities. 8.     On 24 July 1997 the Donji Miholjac State Attorney’s Office indicted M.B. before the Donji Miholjac Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Donjem Miholjcu ) for the criminal offence of ill-treatment in the exercise of an official duty. 9.     By a judgment of 28 October 1997 the Municipal Court found M.B. guilty as charged and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence for a period of one year. The court found, in particular, that the applicant had sustained light bodily injuries, mostly in the form of soft tissue contusions and bruising on the head, elbow and thighs. 10.     On 30 December 1997 the Osijek County Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ) dismissed an appeal by the accused and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final. B.     Civil proceedings 11.     On 30 October 1998 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ), seeking compensation for the ill-treatment sustained. He sought a total of 295,000   Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In response, the State, represented by the State Attorney’s Office, replied that the applicant’s claim was excessive. 12.     On 10 November 1999 the court obtained an opinion from a medical expert. The expert established that the applicant had sustained the following injuries: several contusions on the head (affecting the vertex and the occipital and temporal lobes), bruising on ears, thighs, the left elbow and the left part of the abdomen. Those injuries had healed completely, with no permanent consequences, and had not resulted in the loss of amenities of life. The expert further found that the applicant had suffered constant severe pain for one or two days, occasional moderate pain for three or four days and occasional mild pain for three or four weeks. During the incident the applicant had also experienced intense, primal fear and, for the next one or two days, residual fear – the intensity of which had gradually subsided and completely disappeared over the three subsequent weeks. 13.     In written submissions of 15 June 2001 the applicant’s representative raised his initial claim for compensation to HRK 335,000, of which HRK   300,000 was sought for mental anguish caused by the ill-treatment, HRK   15,000 for physical pain and HRK 20,000 for fear. At a hearing held on 21 June 2001 the applicant’s representative reiterated that claim and, at the same time, withdrew his earlier objections to the expert’s opinion. 14.     On 17 September 2002 the Municipal Court gave judgment, whereby it awarded the applicant a total of HRK 14,500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by arbitrary deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment, together with statutory default interest running from 17   September 2002 and HRK 3,553.31 in costs. In particular, the court awarded the applicant HRK 5,000 for breach of his reputation and honour, liberty and rights of personality, HRK 4,500 for physical pain and HRK   5,000 for fear. At the same time, it dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s compensation claim (HRK 320,500) and ordered him to pay the State HRK 26,197.87 in costs, which consisted of fees chargeable for the State’s representation by the State Attorney’s Office. 15.     In particular, as regards costs, that court established that the total amount of “costs necessary for the conduct of the proceedings”, within the meaning of section 155(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, incurred by the applicant on account of his legal representation by an advocate before that court was HRK 40,070, whereas the State had incurred HRK 27,375 on account of its legal representation by the State Attorney’s Office. As the applicant had only been awarded 4.3% of the total amount of damages sought, he was considered to have successfully claimed that percentage of the damages sought in the proceedings, whereas the State was considered to have successfully defended the remaining 95.7% of the claim. Costs were apportioned in accordance with those percentages, which meant that the applicant was entitled to have HRK 3.553.31 of his costs reimbursed by the State, whereas the State was entitled to have HRK 26,197.87 of its costs reimbursed by the applicant. 16.     On 9 May 2006 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment. 17.     Following an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) by the applicant, on 24   April 2007 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reversed the lower courts’ judgments in part and awarded him a total of HRK 24,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, together with statutory default interest running from 17 September 2002 and HRK 8,300 in costs. In particular, the court awarded the applicant HRK 7,000 for physical pain and HRK 12,000 for fear, whereas the award of HRK 5,000 by the first-instance court for breach of his rights of personality remained unaltered. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for damages and ordered him to pay the State HRK 19,000 in costs. 18.     On 24 December 2007 the State paid the applicant a total of HRK   32,207.28 pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment. That amount consisted of HRK 24,000 in damages, HRK 18,907.28 in accrued statutory default interest and HRK 8,300 costs, less the HRK 19,000 costs the applicant had been ordered to pay the State. 19.     Meanwhile, on 19 October 2007 the applicant, relying on Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution, lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s judgment, alleging violations of his constitutional right to liberty and the constitutional prohibition of ill-treatment. In his constitutional complaint the applicant wrote, inter alia , as follows: “On 30 October 1998 I instituted civil proceedings for damages against the Republic of Croatia as defendant, the epilogue of which was, after nine years of painstaking litigation, the Republic of Croatia as defendant having to pay me 24,000 [Croatian] kunas for all types of non-pecuniary damage and 8,300 [Croatian] kunas for the costs of the proceedings, whereas at the same time I had to pay the defendant 19,000 [Croatian] kunas for the costs of the proceedings!? ... ... I expected full satisfaction ... and [instead] I was reluctantly awarded only those 24,000 [Croatian] kunas, which, when my obligations concerning the defendant’s costs of proceedings are deducted [i.e. taken into account], comes down to a measly 13,300 [Croatian] kunas. [T]hat is no satisfaction at all but a mockery of the Constitution and the law at my expense as an innocent victim of violence by the authorities... ... By the contested judgment I was after nine whole years of litigation ... awarded compensation in a shamefully small amount as if I had been injured in a road traffic accident by negligence, and not been brutally ill-treated.” 20.     On 17 September 2009 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint and served its decision on his representative on 4 November 2009. In so doing the Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s arguments not only under the two Articles of the Constitution he had relied on in his constitutional complaint, but also under Article 14 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, as it found that from the content of the constitutional complaint it was clear that the applicant also complained of a violation of his constitutional right to equality before the law. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The Constitution Relevant provisions 21.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos. 56/90, 135/97, 8/98 (consolidated text), 113/00, 124/00 (consolidated text), 28/01, 41/01 (consolidated text), 55/01 (corrigendum), 76/10 and 85/10) read as follows: Article 14 (2) “All shall be equal before the law.” ... Article 22 “Human liberty and personality shall be inviolable. No one shall be deprived of [his or her] liberty, nor may [a person’s] liberty be restricted, unless provided for by law [and] ordered by a court.” Article 23 “No one may be subjected to any form of ill-treatment, or, without his or her consent, to medical or scientific experimentation. Forced and compulsory labour shall be prohibited.” ... Article 29 (1) “In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.” ... Article 48 “The right of ownership shall be guaranteed. Ownership implies duties. Owners and users of property shall contribute to the general welfare.” B.     The Constitutional Court Act 1.     Relevant provisions 22.     The relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos. 99/99, 29/02 and 49/02 – “the Constitutional Court Act”), which has been in force since 15 March 2002, reads as follows: Section 62 “1. Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she deems that the decision of a state authority, local or regional government or a legal entity invested with public authority on his or her rights or obligations, or as regards the suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms, or the right to local or regional self-government, guaranteed by the Constitution (hereafter: ‘constitutional rights’) ... 2. If another legal remedy is available in respect of the violation of constitutional rights [complained of], a constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted. 3. In matters in which an administrative action or, in civil and non-contentious proceedings, an appeal on points of law [ revizija ] are available, remedies shall be considered exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given.” Section 65(1) “A constitutional complaint shall contain ... an indication of the constitutional right alleged to have been violated [together] with an indication of the relevant provision of the Constitution guaranteeing that right ...” Section 71(1) “ ... [t]he Constitutional Court shall examine only those violations of constitutional rights alleged in the constitutional complaint.” 2.     The Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence 23.     On 9 July 2001 the Constitutional Court delivered decision no.   U ‑ III-368/1999 (Official Gazette no. 65/2001) in a case where the complainant relied in her constitutional complaint on Articles 3 and 19 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, neither of which, under that court’s jurisprudence, concerned a constitutional right. The Constitutional Court nevertheless allowed the constitutional complaint, finding violations of Article   14,   Article 19   paragraph   2 and Article 26 of the Constitution, on which the complainant had not relied, and quashed the contested decisions. In so deciding it held as follows: “... a constitutional complaint cannot be based on either of the constitutional provisions relied on [by the complainant in her constitutional complaint]. However, the present case, as will be explained further, concerns a specific legal situation, as a result of which this court, despite [its] finding that there have not been, and cannot be, any violations of the constitutional rights explicitly relied on by the complainant, considers that there are circumstances which warrant the quashing of [the contested] decisions. ... Namely, it is evident from the constitutional complaint and the case file that there have been violations of [constitutional] rights, in particular those guaranteed by Article 14 (equality, equality before the law), Article 19 § 2 (guarantee of judicial review of decisions of state and other public authorities) and Article 26 (equality before the courts and other state or public authorities) of the Constitution ...” C.     The Civil Procedure Act 1.     Relevant provisions 24.     The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 4/1977, 36/1977 (corrigendum), 36/1980, 69/1982, 58/1984, 74/1987, 57/1989, 20/1990, 27/1990 and 35/1991 and Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 53/91, 91/92, 58/93, 112/99, 88/01, 117/03, 88/05, 02/07, 84/08, 123/08, 57/11 and 148/11) reads as follows: JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 2.     Subject matter jurisdiction Determining the value of the subject matter of the dispute Section 35 “(1) When the value of the subject matter of the dispute is relevant for determining subject matter jurisdiction, the composition of the court, the right to lodge an appeal on points of law and in other cases provided for in this Act, only the value of the principal claim shall be taken into account as the value of the subject matter of the dispute. (2) Interest, costs of proceedings, liquidated damages and other secondary claims shall not be taken into account unless they constitute the principal claim.” Section 40 (2) “... when an action does not concern a sum of money, the relevant value shall be the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated by the plaintiff in the statement of claim ( u tužbi ).” ... COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS Section 151 “(1)   he costs of proceedings involve disbursements made during, or in relation to, the proceedings. (2)   The costs of proceedings also include a fee for services of an advocate and other persons entitled to a fee by law.” Section 154 “(1)   A party who loses a case completely shall reimburse the costs of the opposing party and his or her intervener. (2)   If a party succeeds in the proceedings in part, the court may, having regard to the success achieved, order that each party shall bear its own costs or that one party shall reimburse the other party and the intervener the corresponding part of the costs. (3)   The court may decide that one party reimburses in full the costs incurred by the opposing party and his or her intervener if the opposing party did not succeed with only a relatively insignificant part of his or her claim, and where no special costs were generated because of that part. (4)   ...” Section 155 “(1)   In deciding which costs shall be reimbursed to a party, the court shall take into account only those costs which were necessary for the conduct of the proceedings. When deciding which costs were necessary and their level, the court shall carefully consider all the circumstances. (2)   If there is a prescribed scale of advocates’ fees or other costs, these costs shall be awarded according to that scale.” Section 156(1) “Regardless of the outcome of the case, a party shall reimburse the costs of the opposing party which he or she has caused to be incurred through his or her own fault or by an event that befell him or her [i.e. by accident].” Section 163 “The provisions on costs [of proceedings] are also applicable to parties which are represented by the State Attorney’s Office. In that case the costs of proceedings also include the amount that would be awarded to the party as advocates’ fees.” 2.     The Supreme Court’s case-law 25.     On 6 June 1980 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court adopted an opinion, which it forwarded to the lower courts as a practice direction and has followed ever since (see, for example, decisions no. Rev 1093/09-2 of 15 October 2009, no. Rev 1181/09-2 of 30 October 2009 and no.   Rev   341/09-2 of 7 April 2010), according to which section 154(2) of the Civil Procedure Act was to be interpreted as follows: “1.     In the event of a partial success in [civil] proceedings (section 154 paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act) it is necessary to interpret the terms ‘partial success’ and ‘corresponding part of the costs’ not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, that is, by taking into account [both] the substance and the quantum of the allowed or dismissed part of the claim. Therefore: (a)     where the defendant disputed the substance of the claim in its entirety or only the substance of certain parts of the claim (such as a certain type of damage and such like), because of which an expert opinion had to be prepared or other evidence taken, the costs of which were advanced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to have those costs reimbursed in their entirety, irrespective of the level of the amount [of damages] awarded; (b)     where the defendant disputed only the level of compensation sought for a particular type of non-pecuniary damage, the court has to assess whether the plaintiff should be entitled to have costs related to the determination of the level of non-pecuniary damages he or she advanced reimbursed in their entirety or only in part.” 26.     For example, in case no. Rev 1083/09-2 of 15 October 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision to award the plaintiff the entire costs he incurred in civil proceedings for damages, even though he was only awarded 65% of the amount of damages sought. In so deciding the Supreme Court held as follows: “... this court has, on [the issue of] a partial success of a party in [civil] proceedings and the application of section 154 paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, already adopted a legal opinion at a session of [its] Civil Division on 6 June 1980. The legal opinion adopted at that session of the Civil Division suggests that when assessing the costs of proceedings it is necessary to interpret the terms ‘partial success’ and ‘corresponding part of the costs’ not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. That means that where the defendant disputed the substance of the claim in its entirety, because of which costs were incurred, the plaintiff is entitled to have those costs reimbursed in their entirety, irrespective of the level of the amount [of damages] awarded. Therefore, section 154 paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Act should, in the event of a partial success in the proceedings, in principle, apply in the manner suggested by the appellant on points of law but also, as an exception, in the way the lower courts applied it in the present case. The lower courts assessed the costs of proceedings in this case by taking into account the fact that they were only incurred because the substance of the claim was disputed and not the level of non-pecuniary damages sought. The present case [thus] concerns precisely the application of the aforementioned qualitative approach in the assessment of the costs of proceedings.” D.     The 2001 State Attorney’s Act 27.     The relevant provision of the State Attorney’s Act ( Zakon o državnom odvjetništvu , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos.   51/2001, 16/2007, 20/2007 (corrigendum), 146/2008), which was in force between 13 June 2001 and 30 June 2009, provided as follows: Section 22 “The costs of [legal] representation [of the State] before the courts and other competent authorities shall be awarded to the competent state attorney’s office in accordance with the legislation governing advocates’ fees and reimbursement of their costs. The funds collected as costs of [legal] representation [of the State] are revenue of the State budget.” E.     The Scales of Advocates’ Fees and Reimbursement of their Costs 28.     According to the Scales of Advocates’ Fees and Reimbursement of their Costs ( Tarifa o nagradama i naknadi troškova za rad odvjetnika , Official Gazette nos.   91/2004, 37/2005 and 59/2007), an advocate’s fees in a civil case are, as a matter of principle, calculated in proportion to the value of the subject matter of the dispute (the amount in controversy) for every procedural action. The value of the subject matter of the dispute normally corresponds to the sum the plaintiff is seeking to obtain through his or her civil action. Scales 7 to 9 provide that the fee for drafting a statement of claim or the defendant’s reply to it and the fee for attendance at a hearing shall be calculated in the following way:   Value of the subject matter of the dispute (HRK) Fee (HRK) 0 – 2,500 250 2,500 – 5,000 500 5,000 – 10,000 750 10,000 – 100,000   1,000 100,000 – 250,000   2,500 250,000 – 500,000   5,000 F.     1978 Obligations Act 1.     Relevant provisions 29.     The Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 29/1978, 39/1985 and   57/1989, and Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 53/91, 73/91, 111/93, 3/94, 7/96, 91/96, 112/99 and 88/01 – hereafter: “the 1978 Obligations Act”), which was in force between 1 October 1978 and 31   December 2005, was the legislation governing contracts and torts. According to that Act courts were entitled to award compensation for the following types of non-pecuniary damage: (1) physical pain, (2) fear and (3) mental anguish caused by (a) loss of amenities of life ( smanjenje životne aktivnosti ), (b) disfigurement, (c) injury to one’s reputation and honour, (d) breach of liberty, (e) breach of the rights of personality, (f) death of a close relative, (g) severe disability of an immediate family member, and (h) sexual offences (rape, lewd acts, etc.) punishable by criminal law. The 1978 Obligations Act did not provide for punitive (exemplary) damages. Its relevant provisions read as follows: Damage Section 155 “Damage is diminution of one’s property (actual damage) or prevention of its increase (lost profits), as well as the infliction of physical or mental pain or fear (non-pecuniary damage).” ... Non-pecuniary damages Section 200 “The court shall award non-pecuniary damages for physical pain, for mental anguish caused by loss of amenities of life, disfigurement, breaches of reputation, honour, liberty or the rights of personality or the death of a close relative, and for fear, if it finds that the circumstances of the case, in particular the intensity of the pain, anguish or fear and their duration, justify such an award, irrespective of any award of pecuniary damages, and even in the absence of pecuniary damage. When deciding on a claim for non-pecuniary damages and its amount, the court shall take into account ... the purpose of those damages, as well as that it should not favour aspirations that are incompatible with their nature and social purpose.” 2.     The Supreme Court’s guidelines 30.     The Orientation Criteria for the Harmonisation of the Level of Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage ( Orijentacioni kriteriji za ujednačavanje visine naknade nematerijalne štete – hereafter “the 1995 Guidelines”) were guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court on 8 March 1995 with a view to facilitating the uniform application of section 200 of the 1978 Obligations Act. Those Guidelines specified the following amounts in German marks (DEM) – to be converted into Croatian kunas (HRK) – for various types of non-pecuniary damage:         Physical pain, per day severe 50-70     In total, for all forms of physical pain maximum 5,000 The total amount of compensation may be varied according to the severity of the injury and the other specific circumstances of the case. moderate 30-50 mild 10 Fear 700 – 3,000 Mental anguish caused by loss of amenities of life, for each 10% 2,000 – 4,000 up until 30%   Variable according to the extent and severity of the established permanent effects. 4,000 – 7,000 for over 30% Mental anguish for death of a close relative spouse, child or parent 10,000 – 15,000 brothers and sisters 7,000 – 10,000   Mental anguish for disfigurement severe 3,000 – 5,000 Variable according to the age, profession, sex, location of the injury, etc. moderate 2,000 – 3,500 mild 1,000 – 2,000 Mental anguish for particularly severe disability of an immediate family member     10,000 – 20,000   31.     The Orientation Criteria and Sums for Determining the Level of Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage ( Orijentacijski kriteriji i iznosi za utvrđivanje visine pravične novčane naknade nematerijalne štete – hereafter: “the 2002 Guidelines”) are guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court on 29 November 2002 that replaced the 1995 Guidelines. They were published on 30 December 2002 and 30 June 2003 in the Supreme Court’s publication “ Izbor odluka Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske ” [Selection of decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia], nos. 2/2002 and 1/2003. The 2002 Guidelines specified the following amounts in HRK to be awarded for various types of non-pecuniary damage:     Physical pain, per day severe 370 moderate 220 mild 70 Fear 2,200 – 30,000   Mental anguish caused by loss of amenities of life up to 25% 7,500 for every 10% between 25% and 40% 11,000 for every 10% between 40% and 60% 22,000 for every 10% between 60% and 80% 45,000 for every 10% between 80% and 100% 75,000 for every 10%     Mental anguish for death of a close relative Death of a spouse or child 220,000 Loss of an unborn child 75,000   Death of a parent for a child who was in that parent’s custody   220,000 for a child 150,000 Death of a brother or sister 75,000     Mental anguish for disfigurement severe very visible to third persons 37,000 only occasionally visible 22,000 moderate very visible to third persons 22,000 only occasionally visible 11,000 mild very visible to third persons 5,000 only occasionally visible 2,500   Mental anguish for particularly severe disability of an immediate family member   Disability of a spouse   220,000   Disability of a parent for a child who was in that parent’s custody   220,000 for a child 150,000 G.     Other relevant legislation 32.     Section 63 of the 1999 Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no. 99/1999 of 29 September 1999 – “the Constitutional Court Act”), as amended by the 2002 Amendments which entered into force on 15 March 2002 ( Ustavni zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Ustavnog zakona o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no. 29/2002 of 22 March 2002), establishes that a constitutional complaint is the appropriate remedy for complaints concerning the length of judicial proceedings in Croatia and is reproduced in Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.), no.   20862/02, ECHR 2002 ‑ VII. 33.     The relevant provisions of the Courts Act ( Zakon o sudovima , Official Gazette nos.   150/05, 16/07 and 113/08), which entered into force on 29   December 2005, governing the request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time as the appropriate remedy for complaints concerning the length of judicial proceedings in Croatia, are set out in Praunsperger v. Croatia , no.   16553/08, § 21, 22 April 2010. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 34.     The applicant complained that he had been subject to ill-treatment, that the police officer who had ill-treated him had received only a suspended sentence and that the compensation he had been awarded in the above civil proceedings had been insufficient. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 35.     The Court first notes that the ill-treatment complained of took place on 25 January 1997, that is, before the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997. It further notes that the criminal proceedings against the police officer in question ended on 30 December 1997, whereas the applicant lodged his application with the Court only on 2   May 2011, more than thirteen years later. Clearly, the six-month time ‑ limit in which to bring an application before the Court had already expired. 36.     It follows that in so far as the applicant’s complaint concerns the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, namely the negative obligation of the State to refrain from ill-treatment, it is inadmissible as incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof. 37.     It further follows that, to the extent that the applicant’s complaint concerns the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, in other words the positive obligation to conduct an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for failure to observe the six-month rule and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof. 38.     The applicant’s remaining complaint that the compensation he received for the ill-treatment sustained was insufficient falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vasil   Sashov   Petrov v. Bulgaria , no. 63106/00, §§ 58-61, 10 June 2010), 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.” 39.     The Court reiterates that Article 13 does not contain a general guarantee of legal protection of all substantive rights. It refers exclusively to those cases in which the applicant alleges, on arguable grounds, that one of his rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention has been violated (see Gavella v. Croatia (dec.), no. 33244/02, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts)). Accordingly, it cannot be relied on independently from, but only in conjunction with, one or more substantive Articles of the Convention. 40.     In this connection the Court refers to its findings above, according to which the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is inadmissible as incompatible ratione temporis . 41.     It follows that the complaint under Article 13 is also incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 thereof and must be rejected pursuant to its Article 35 § 4. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCESSIVE COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS 42.     The applicant also complained that, by ordering him to pay to the State the costs that had been higher than the compensation he had been awarded for ill-treatment by a policeman, the domestic courts had breached Article   6   § 1 of the Convention, which in its relevant part reads as follows:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 43.     The Government contested that argument. A.     Admissibility 44.     The Government disputed the admissibility of this complaint on four grounds. They argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the violation alleged, that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, had not observed the six-month rule and that he had abused the right of application. 1.     The applicant’s victim status 45.     The Government first submitted that it was evident from the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 April 2007 (see paragraph 17 above) that the costs the applicant had been ordered to pay to the State had not been higher than the compensation he had been awarded. The applicant therefore could not claim to be a victim of the alleged breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 46.     The applicant maintained his view that he was a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 47.     The Court, having regard to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24   April 2007, considers it is undeniable that the costs the applicant was eventually ordered to pay (HRK 19,000) were lower than the compensation awarded to him (HRK 24,000). However, that does not mean that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of the violation complained of, as a substantial reduction of an award of damages resulting from the duty to pay the costs of proceedings may entail a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Stankov v. Bulgaria , no. 68490/01, §§ 51-67, ECHR 2007 ‑ VIII). Accordingly, the Government’s objection regarding the applicant’s victim status must be rejected. 2.     Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)     The parties’ submissions 48.     The Government also argued that the applicant had not complained of a violation of his right to a fair hearing in the proceedings before the domestic courts. In particular, in his constitutional complaint the applicant had not relied on Article 29 of the Constitution, which was the provision enshrining the constitutional right to a fair hearing, or on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention directly . Rather, he had complained only of a violation of his constitutional right to liberty, guaranteed by Article   22 of the Constitution, and of a violation of the constitutional prohibition of ill-treatment, stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 19 and 21 above) . 49.     The applicant, referring to the principle of iura novit curia , replied that it had been for the Constitutional Court to legally qualify the arguments raised in his constitutional complaint. It was precisely in the application of that principle that the Constitutional Court had found that he had also implicitly complained under Article 14 paragraph 2 of the Constitution (see paragraph 20 above). That being so, the Constitutional Court could have likewise, had it wanted to, (re-)qualified the arguments adduced in his constitutional complaint and examined them under Article 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, as it had been obvious that they, together with the facts of the case, had indicated that the proceedings had been unfair. (b)     The Court’s assessment 50.     The Court first notes that the applicant, in his constitutional complaint, did not rely on Article 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which is the provision that arguably corresponds to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Nor did he rely on Article 6 § 1 directly. Instead, he referred principally to Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution, which are the provisions that largely correspond to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above). 51.     The Court further notes that it is clear from the Constitutional Court’s decision no. U-III-363/1999 of 9 July 2001 (see paragraph 23 above) that in certain cases it is not necessary for persons lodging a constitutional complaint to plead the relevant Articles of the Constitution, as sections   65(1) and 71(1) of the Constitutional Court Act may suggest. Sometimes it may be sufficient for a violation of a constitutional right to be apparent from the complainant’s submissions and the case file. This conclusion is further reinforced by the Constitutional Court’s readiness in the present case to also examine the applicant’s case under Article 14 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, a provision he did not rely on in his constitutional complaint (see paragraphs 19-20 above). 52.     Therefore, while it is true that in his constitutional complaint the applicant did not explicitly rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or the corresponding provision of the Constitution, he did complain of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded for the ill-treatment by the police in view of the costs of proceedings he had been ordered to pay to the State. In particular, he referred to such reduced compensation as “a mockery of the Constitution and the law” (see paragraph 19 above). 53.     In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant, having raised the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did raise before the domestic courts the complaint which he ha