CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF97A2041 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC03030BA { margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s310CB710 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s84CD1D0D { width:9.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s639B43D8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s2DAE615E { width:6.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s24EDCC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:18pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9EE819 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s867F9C1B { width:175.28pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZUSTOVIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 27903/15)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Judgment quashing a decision denying a disability pension and dismissing the claim for costs based on a provision of law providing that each party to judicial review proceedings bear their own costs • Provision constituting a restriction of access to court invalidated by the Constitutional Court • State having to bear the costs of the proceedings in dispute against it originating from acts in the exercise of its public authority   STRASBOURG 22 April 2021   FINAL   22/07/2021   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zustović v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Alena Poláčková,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   27903/15) 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, Ms Nisveta Zustović (“the applicant”), on 2 June 2015; the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning access to a court and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns administrative and judicial review proceedings regarding the applicant’s disability pension in which the relevant administrative court, while ruling in her favour on the merits, dismissed her claim for costs based on a provision of the Administrative Disputes Act, which, at the time, provided that each party to judicial review proceedings had to bear its own costs. That provision was later invalidated by the Constitutional Court as incompatible with the Constitution. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kršan. She was represented by her son Mr B. Zustović, an advocate practising in Pazin. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 4 .     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Administrative and judicial review proceedings concerning the applicant’s disability pension 5 .     On 16 February 2012 the applicant’s doctor requested an assessment of her capacity to work, thereby initiating administrative proceedings before the regional office of the Croatian Pension Fund in Pula ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Puli – hereafter “the Pula Pension Fund”). In those proceedings, the applicant was represented by her son, an advocate, who also represented her before the Court (see paragraph   2 above). 6 .     By a decision of 9 March 2012 the Pula Pension Fund dismissed the request, relying on the opinion of an in-house medical expert of 1   March   2012. 7.     The applicant lodged an appeal with the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba – hereafter “the Central Pension Fund”). 8 .     After obtaining the opinion of a senior in-house medical expert on 16   May 2012, by a decision of 21 May 2012 the Central Pension Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. 9 .     On 10 July 2012 the applicant brought an action for judicial review with the Rijeka Administrative Court ( Upravni sud u Rijeci ). She asked the court to quash the Pension Fund’s decisions, rule on the merits of the case by granting her a disability pension from 16 February 2012 and award her the costs of the proceedings. She submitted that the Pension Fund’s in-house experts had not interviewed her and that she had not been served with a copy of their opinions. She therefore asked the court to obtain an independent expert opinion. 10 .     In the judicial review proceedings, the applicant continued to be represented by her son (see paragraph 2 and 5 above). The Croatian Pension Fund was represented by its in-house lawyers. 11 .     On 19 December 2012 the new Scale of Advocates’ Fees entered into force (see paragraph 55 below), increasing the costs of legal representation by an advocate in judicial review proceedings. 12 .     On 28 December 2012 the 2012 Amendments to the Administrative Disputes Act came into force. From that date section 79 provided that each party to judicial review proceedings had to bear its own costs. The new rule applied immediately to all ongoing proceedings in which the main hearing had not been closed (see paragraphs 42-43 below). 13.     At a hearing on 4 October 2013 the Rijeka Administrative Court ordered an expert medical report by an independent expert. 14 .     On 28 January 2014 the court invited the applicant to advance, within fifteen   days, 4,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) for the costs of the expert report. On 3 June 2014 the court invited her to advance further HRK 140. 15 .     On 11 February and 9 July 2014 respectively, the applicant paid those amounts. 16 .     On 29 April 2014 an independent medical expert carried out an expert medical assessment and found that the applicant’s health had deteriorated to the extent that she had completely and permanently lost her capacity to work. 17 .     At a hearing held on 3 June 2014 the Rijeka Administrative Court heard the medical expert, who stated that he could not determine exactly when the applicant had lost her capacity to work. He was however certain that at the time of adoption of the Pula Pension Fund’s decision of 9   March   2012 (see paragraph 6 above) she had been incapable of working. 18 .     At a hearing held on 21 August 2014 the applicant, represented by her son as her advocate, asked the court to award her the costs of the proceedings. She submitted that section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, which at the time provided that each party had to bear its own costs (see paragraph 42 below), was contrary to the Constitution because it unduly restricted the right of access to a court and disturbed procedural equality between the parties. The applicant thus asked the court to apply section   79 in its original wording (that is, before the entry into force of the 2012 Amendments, see paragraph 41 below) and award her HRK 26,015 for the costs of the proceedings, consisting of the costs of her legal representation and the costs of the expert report (HRK 4,140, see paragraphs 14-15 above). 19 .     By a judgment adopted on the same day, 21 August 2014, the Rijeka Administrative Court quashed the Pension Fund’s decisions of 9 March and 21 May 2012 (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above) and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It ordered the Pula Pension Fund to decide on the applicant’s right to a disability pension on the basis of the report obtained from the independent medical expert in the judicial review proceedings (see paragraph 16 above). At the same time, it dismissed the applicant’s claim for the costs of the proceedings. It referred to section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act as in force at the material time (see paragraph   12 above and paragraph 42 below), which it did not consider contrary to the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution and the Convention. 20 .     The Rijeka Administrative Court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 9 September 2014. 21 .     On 9 October 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the part of that judgment containing the ruling on costs. She complained, inter alia , that her right to a fair hearing, in particular her right of access to a court and the right to procedural equality, as guaranteed by Article 29 of the Croatian Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, had been violated when the Rijeka Administrative Court, while ruling in her favour, had refused to award her the costs of the proceedings. In so doing, she repeated, in substance, the arguments she had advanced before that court (see paragraph 18 above). She also relied on the Court’s judgment in the case of Airey v. Ireland (9 October 1979, Series A no. 32). 22 .     By a decision of 18 November 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible, on the grounds that the contested decision did not concern the merits of the case and, as such, was not amenable to constitutional review. On 2   December   2014 it served its decision on the applicant’s representative. 23.     In the resumed proceedings, the Pula Pension Fund decided to obtain the opinion of a medical expert to determine the exact date on which the applicant had lost her capacity to work (see paragraph 17 above). 24 .     On 3 March 2015 the Pula Pension Fund granted the applicant a   disability pension in the amount of HRK 1,322.89 per month starting from 1 March 2012, on the grounds of her permanent incapacity to work. In deciding this, it referred to the opinion of an in-house medical expert, who had established that she had lost her capacity to work in March 2012. 25.     On 30 March 2015 the Pula Pension Fund ordered that the applicant be paid the pension instalments due for the period 1 March 2012 to 30   March 2015. 26.     Considering that her pension should have been higher and that she was entitled to the statutory default interest accrued on the pension instalments due in the above-mentioned period, the applicant appealed against the Pula Pension Fund’s decision of 3 March 2015 (see paragraph   24 above). 27 .     By a decision of 26 August 2015 the Central Pension Fund allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashed the Pula Pension Fund’s decision of 3   March 2015 (see paragraph 24 above) and remitted the case for fresh consideration. 28 .     Considering that her appeal had been allowed only in part, the applicant brought a second action for judicial review against the Central Pension Fund’s decision of 26 August 2015. 29 .     On 27 September 2016 the Constitutional Court invalidated, as contrary to the Constitution, section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, as amended by the 2012 Amendments (see paragraph 12 above and paragraphs 42-43 below). 30 .     By a judgment of 12 December 2017 the Rijeka Administrative Court quashed the contested decision of 26 August 2015 (see paragraph 27 above) and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court also awarded the applicant HRK 3,125 for the costs of her second action for judicial review (see paragraph 28 above). 31 .     By a decision of 19 April 2018 of the High Administrative Court overturned the ruling on costs and, referring to its opinion of 12   February   2018 (see paragraph 50 below), ordered that each party bear its own costs. 32.     The applicant then lodged a second constitutional complaint in these proceedings, challenging the High Administrative Court’s decision. 33 .     This time the Constitutional Court allowed the constitutional complaint and, by a decision of 5 June 2019, quashed the High Administrative Court’s decision of 19 April 2018 (see paragraph 31 above) and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It referred to its decision of 9   April 2019 (see paragraph 51 below), reiterating that the High Administrative Court’s opinion of 12 February 2018 (see paragraph 50 below) and the decisions based on it were in breach of the right of access to a court. other relevant proceedings 34 .     In 2017 the applicant – represented by her son as her advocate – brought an action for judicial review in the Rijeka Administrative Court against a decision of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund of 15   November   2017. By a judgment of 17 May 2018 the court ruled in her favour, quashed the contested decision of the Fund and remitted the case for fresh consideration. Referring to the High Administrative Court’s opinion of 12   February 2018 (see paragraph 50 below), it however dismissed the applicant’s claim for the costs of the judicial review proceedings and ordered that each party bear its own costs. The applicant then appealed against the ruling on costs, but her appeal was dismissed by a decision of the High Administrative Court of 17 May 2018. 35 .     However, on 5 June 2019, upon the applicant’s constitutional complaint (see paragraph 33 above), the Constitutional Court quashed the High Administrative Court’s decision of 17 May 2018 (see paragraph 34 above) and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It referred to its decision of 9 April 2019 (see paragraph 51 below), reiterating that the High Administrative Court’s opinion of 12 February 2018 (see paragraph 50 below) and the decisions based on it were in breach of the right of access to a court. 36 .     In the resumed judicial review proceedings, the High Administrative Court first, on 12 September 2019, quashed the Rijeka Administrative Court’s ruling on costs of 17 May 2018 (see paragraph 34 above) and remitted the case for fresh consideration. In a decision of 27   September   2019 the latter awarded the applicant the costs of the judicial review proceedings, consisting of the costs of her legal representation by an advocate. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE CONSTITUTION 37 .     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 56/90 with subsequent amendments) read as follows: Article 115 § 3 “The courts shall decide [cases] on the basis of the Constitution, statute, international agreements and other valid sources of law.” Article 134 “International agreements in force which have been concluded and ratified in accordance with the Constitution and made public shall be part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia and shall have precedence in terms of their legal effects over the [domestic] statutes ...” CONSTITUTIONal court act 38 .     The relevant provisions of the 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.   99/99 with subsequent amendments – “the Constitutional Court Act”) read as follows: III. REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LEGALITY OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION Section 35 “An application instituting proceedings before the Constitutional Court [application for constitutional review] may be submitted by: - ...; - the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia or other court, if the issue of constitutionality and legality has arisen in proceedings before that court; - ..” Section 37(1) “If a court in the proceedings finds that the statute to be applied or some of its provisions are not in conformity with the Constitution, it shall stay the proceedings and lodge an application with the Constitutional Court to review the conformity of the statute or its specific provisions with the Constitution.” Section 38 “Every natural or legal person has the right to propose the institution of proceedings to review the constitutionality of statutes [petition for constitutional review] ... The Constitutional Court may of its own motion institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of statutes...” Section 55 “(1)     The Constitutional Court shall invalidate a statute or its provisions if it finds that they are incompatible with the Constitution ... (2)     Unless the Constitutional Court decides otherwise, the invalidated statute or its provisions shall cease to have legal force on the date of publication of the Constitutional Court’s decision in the Official Gazette.” Section 58(2) and (4) “(2)     Every natural or legal person who has lodged with the Constitutional Court a   petition to review the constitutionality of a statutory provision, or the constitutionality or legality of a provision of subordinate legislation, and whose petition has been accepted by the Constitutional Court and [that] provision invalidated, has a right to lodge with the relevant authority [a request to reopen the proceedings] and ask that the decision based on the invalidated ... provision ... be set aside. .. (4)     [The request to reopen the proceedings] referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 ... may be lodged within six months of the publication of the Constitutional Court’s decision in the Official Gazette.” Administrative Disputes Act Relevant provisions 39.     The Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , Official Gazette no. 20/10 with further amendments), which governs judicial review proceedings (administrative disputes), has been in force since 1 January 2012. Provision governing the costs of proceedings and its amendments 40.     Section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act governs the costs of judicial review proceedings. Under Croatian law, there are two types of judicial decisions: judgments ( presude ) and rulings ( rješenja ). The courts decide on the merits of a case by a judgment and on procedural issues by a   ruling. The costs of proceedings are always decided by a ruling even when the decision on costs is incorporated in a judgment. In such cases, the point in the operative provisions of a judgment in which the court decides on costs is considered to be a ruling. The consequence of this distinction is that when legislation allows a certain remedy to be lodged only against a   judgment, it means that the same remedy is not available against the part of a judgment concerning a decision on costs, that part being considered a   ruling. (a)    Original wording 41 .     In its original wording, section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act provided: Costs of judicial review proceedings Section 79 “(1)     The costs of the proceedings are the disbursements made during or in relation to the proceedings. The costs of the proceedings also include fees for the services of advocates and other persons legally entitled to remuneration. (2) Each party shall advance the costs incurred by his or her actions, unless otherwise provided by law. Costs incurred as a result of the court acting of its own motion shall be advanced from the court’s budget. (3)     A party who loses a case completely shall bear the costs of the proceedings in full, unless otherwise provided by law. If a party succeeds in the proceedings in part, the court may, having regard to the success achieved, order that each party bear its own costs, that one party reimburse the other party the corresponding part of the costs or that the costs be apportioned in proportion to success in the proceedings. (4)     A party who withdraws an action, appeal or other motion which has resulted in costs being incurred by the other parties shall also bear those parties’ costs. (5)     In deciding which costs shall be reimbursed to a party, the court shall take into account only the costs which were necessary for the conduct of the proceedings.” (b)    2012 Amendments to the Administrative Disputes Act 42 .     Section 79 was amended by the 2012 Amendments to the Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o upravnim sporovima , Official Gazette no.   143/2012   – “the 2012 Amendments”), which entered into force on 28 December 2012. The text of section 79, as amended by the 2012 Amendments, read as follows: Costs of judicial review proceedings Section 79 “In judicial review proceedings, each party shall bear its own costs.” 43 .     The Amendments provided for their immediate application to all ongoing proceedings in which the main hearing had not been closed. (c)    2017 Amendment to the Administrative Disputes Act 44 .     In order to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 27   September 2016 (see paragraph 29 above and paragraph 48 below), Croatian Parliament adopted the 2017 Amendment to the Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o izmjeni i dopuni Zakona o upravnim sporovima , Official Gazette no.   29/2017   – “the 2017 Amendment”), which entered into force on 31   March   2017. The wording of section 79, as amended by 2017 Amendment, is largely identical to the original wording of that provision (see paragraph 41 above), and reads as follows: Costs of judicial review proceedings Section 79 “(1)     The costs of the proceedings are justified disbursements made during or in relation to the proceedings. The costs of the proceedings also include fees for the services of advocates and other persons legally entitled to remuneration. (2)     The value of the subject matter of the dispute shall be considered undeterminable. (3)     Each party shall advance the costs incurred by his or her actions, unless otherwise provided by law. Costs incurred as a result of the court acting of its own motion shall be advanced from the court’s budget. (4)     A party who loses a case completely shall bear the costs of the proceedings in full, unless otherwise provided by law. If a party succeeds in the proceedings in part, the court may, having regard to the success achieved, order that each party bear its own costs, that one party reimburse the other party the corresponding part of the costs or that the costs be apportioned in proportion to success in the proceedings. (5)     A party who withdraws an action, appeal or other motion which has resulted in costs being incurred by the other parties shall also bear those parties’ costs. (6)     The court may decide on the costs of the proceedings together with the decision on the merits or by a separate ruling within fifteen days of the date of pronouncement of the judgment. (7) An appeal is allowed against the ruling referred to in paragraph 6 ....” 45.     The Amendment provided for its immediate application to all ongoing proceedings. Other relevant provisions 46 .     Under section 24 of the Administrative Disputes Act, an action for judicial review must be brought within thirty days of service of the decision being contested. 47 .     Section 76 allows for the possibility to reopen judicial review proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The text of that provision is reproduced in the case of Guberina   v.   Croatia (no. 23682/13, § 28, ECHR 2016). Relevant practice The Constitutional Court’s decision of 27   September 2016 invalidating the 2012 Amendments 48 .     Following an application for constitutional review lodged in 2014 by the High Administrative Court, and a number of petitions for such review lodged in the period between 2012 and 2014 by the Croatian Bar Association, the Association of Corporate Lawyers, several advocates and some other petitioners, by a decision of 27   September 2016 the Constitutional Court invalidated, as contrary to the Constitution, section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, as amended by the 2012 Amendments (see paragraph 42 above). The relevant part of its decision reads as follows: “...the manner of legal regulation of reimbursement of the costs of proceedings is one of the components of the right of access to justice, which is immanent to the right to a fair hearing [guaranteed by] Article 29 [§ 1] of the Croatian Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention... ... ... judicial review proceedings ... usually require the parties to seek legal assistance provided by advocates. ... such proceedings cannot be fair unless it is ensured that the losing party pays the costs of the proceedings to the opposing party, which are, in essence, caused by an unlawful decision or action of the State or public authorities. ... ... the Constitutional Court finds that the amendment of the original section   79 of the Administrative Disputes Act did not have a legitimate aim, and was aimed at protecting the financial interests of the State (since it is precisely the State that must bear the costs of the proceedings in the event of losing the case). ... the right of access to a court is not absolute. It is subject to restrictions .... In the present case, the restriction imposed by the [2012 Amendments] was without objective, legitimate and constitutionally justified reasons. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court invalidates section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act ...” 49.     The Constitutional Court deferred the effects of its decision by giving the Croatian Parliament until 31 March 2017 to amend the unconstitutional provision. Parliament did so by adopting the 2017 Amendment to the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 44 above). Other relevant practice 50 .     At a session on 12 February 2018 the High Administrative Court adopted an opinion that when an administrative court or the High Administrative Court in judicial review proceedings quashes a decision of a   public authority and remits the case for fresh consideration (as opposed to the situation where it rules on the matter itself by replacing the contested decision of a public authority), each party has to bear its own costs. 51 .     In decision no. U-III-2086/2018 of 9 April 2019 the Constitutional Court allowed a constitutional complaint and quashed a decision based on that opinion whereby the Split Administrative Court had decided that each party had to bear its own costs. The Constitutional Court held that the effects of that opinion were the same as those of the invalidated section   79   of the Administrative Disputes Act as amended by the 2012 Amendments (see paragraph 42 above). Therefore, that opinion and the contested decision based on it were in breach of the complainants’ right of access to a court. OTHER LEGISLATION 52 .     Under the Court Fees Act ( Zakon o sudskim pristojbama , Official Gazette no. 74/95 with further amendments), as in force at the relevant time, plaintiffs had to pay HRK 500 to bring an action for judicial review and pay the same amount of court fees for the judgment delivered in those proceedings. However, plaintiffs in judicial review proceedings relating to pensions and disability insurance were exempt from court fees. 53 .     Under section 8(1) of the Legal Aid Act ( Zakon o besplatnoj pravnoj pomoći , Official Gazette no. 62/08 with further amendments), which was in force between 7 June 2008 and 31 December 2013, persons requesting legal aid were not eligible for it if they or an adult member of their household owned another house or flat than the one in which they lived. 54 .     Under the Advocates Act ( Zakon o odvjetništvu , Official Gazette no. 9/94 with further amendments), the Croatian Bar Association had to ensure free legal assistance ( pro bono representation by an advocate) to war victims and socially vulnerable individuals in cases in which such persons were exercising rights related to their status, as well as in other cases specified in the Bar Association’s internal regulations. The information notice on the website of the Croatian Bar Association specifies that submitting a request for pro bono representation does not interrupt the running of statutory time-limits, for example, those prescribed for bringing actions or lodging legal remedies. 55 .     The Scale of Advocates’ Fees ( Tarifa o nagradama i naknadi troškova za rad odvjetnika , Official Gazette no. 142/12 with further amendments), which entered into force on 19 December 2012, provides that: - an advocate must apply the scale applicable at the time of charging the fees (section 48(1)); and - when the court or other authority decides on the costs of the proceedings, it must apply the scale in force at the time of adoption of the decision on costs (section 48(3)). THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 56 .     The applicant complained that her right to a fair hearing had been violated on account of her inability to obtain reimbursement of the costs of the judicial review proceedings in which the domestic courts had ruled in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a   fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Admissibility 57.     The Government disputed the admissibility of this complaint on two grounds. They argued the applicant had not complied with the six-month rule and, alternatively, that she had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Compliance with the sixth-month rule (a)    Submissions by the parties 58 .     In their observations of 19 January 2017 the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule because she had wrongly believed that the constitutional complaint she had lodged on 9   October 2014 (see paragraph 21 above) was an effective remedy to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and thus capable of interrupting the running of the six-month time-limit prescribed by that Article. 59 .     They explained that under the well-established case-law of the Constitutional Court a constitutional complaint could not be lodged against a ruling on the costs of proceedings. The applicant’s legal representative should have been aware of that. 60 .     Consequently, the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, for the purposes of calculating the six-month time-limit in the applicant’s case, was not the Constitutional Court’s decision of 18   November 2014 (see paragraph 22 above), but the Rijeka Administrative Court’s decision of 21 August 2014, which had been served on her representative on 9 September 2014 (see paragraphs 19-20 above). However, her application to the Court had been lodged on 2 June 2015, that is, more than six months later. 61 .     The applicant replied that it could be seen from the case of Kardoš   v.   Croatia (no. 25782/11, §§ 31-39, 26 April 2016) that the Court had already had the opportunity to address a similar inadmissibility objection by the Government and that it had each time rejected that argument because accepting it would have disregarded the fact that the Constitutional Court’s practice could evolve. The applicant thus specifically referred to the reasons given by the Court in that judgment, which she considered equally applicable in her case (she also relied on the Court’s judgment in the case of Pavlović and Others v. Croatia , no. 13274/11, §§   30-38, 2 April 2015). 62.     In their comments of 10 April 2017 to the applicant’s observations the Government retorted that for the practice to evolve, there had to be an argument to that effect. However, even though the applicant had been represented by a qualified representative, in her constitutional complaint of 9 October 2014 (see paragraph 21 above) she had not raised any argument that would have prompted the Constitutional Court to develop its case-law and change its position. 63.     In her factual update of 22 October 2019 the applicant informed the Court of the further developments in the proceedings complained of (see paragraphs 30-33 above) and of the concurrent judicial review proceedings against the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (see paragraphs 34-36 above). She emphasised that in both sets of proceedings the Constitutional Court had not only allowed her constitutional complaint but had also quashed the contested rulings on costs (see paragraphs 33 and 35 above). 64.     To that, the Government replied that at the time of adoption of the Rijeka Administrative Court’s decision of 21 August 2014 the Constitutional Court’s case-law to the effect that rulings on costs were not amenable to constitutional review had been uniform and consistent, allowing for no exceptions. They thus maintained their argument (see paragraphs 58-60 above) that the Rijeka Administrative Court’s judgment of 21 August 2014 (see paragraph 19 above) was the last domestic decision in the applicant’s case and that by lodging her application with the Court on 2   June 2015 she had failed to comply with the six-month rule. (b)    The Court’s assessment 65.     The Court has indeed, as pointed out by the applicant (see paragraph   61 above), already had an opportunity to address a similar inadmissibility objection raised by the Government in a number of cases against Croatia, and each time has rejected it (see, notably, Pavlović   and   Others , cited above, §§ 30-38, 2 April 2015, and Vrtar   v.   Croatia , no. 39380/13, §§ 75-76, 7 January 2016 and the cases cited therein). It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case. 66.     In addition, in the Vrtar case the Court held that it would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity to hold that a constitutional complaint should not have been exhausted just because at the time the Constitutional Court’s practice suggested that the decision being contested was not amenable to constitutional review. To do so would not only ignore the fact that such practice may evolve but would, more importantly, remove any incentive for such evolution as applicants would systematically address their complaints to the Court without giving a chance to the Constitutional Court to change its practice (see Vrtar , cited above, § 76). In the present case, the Constitutional Court’s decision in the subsequent course of the proceedings complained of and that in the concurrent judicial review proceedings where that court examined the applicant’s constitutional complaints lodged against the rulings on costs (see paragraphs 33 and 35 above) only reinforce this view and the resulting conclusion that she cannot be blamed for lodging her first constitutional complaint on 9 October 2014 (see paragraph 21 above) against the ruling on costs of 21 August 2014 (see paragraph 19 above) and thus giving the Constitutional Court an opportunity to redress the alleged violation of her right of access to a court. 67.     It follows that the Government’s objection regarding non-compliance with the six-month rule must be rejected. Exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)    Submissions by the parties (i)       The Government 68.     The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in that she had not lodged a petition for constitutional review under section 58(2) of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph   38 above) asking the Constitutional Court to review whether section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, as amended by the 2012 Amendments (see paragraph 42 above), was in conformity with the Croatian Constitution. Had she done so, she would have been able, after the Constitutional Court had invalidated that provision (see paragraphs 29 and 48 above), to seek the reopening of the judicial review proceedings under section 58(4) of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 38 above) and have the ruling on costs overturned. 69.     In this connection, the Government noted that at the hearing of 21   August 2014 before the Rijeka Administrative Court the applicant had argued that section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, as amended by the 2012 Amendments, was contrary to the Croatian Constitution (see paragraph 18 above). She repeated the same argument in her constitutional complaint (see paragraph 21 above). In view of the Constitutional Court’s case-law that a constitutional complaint could not be lodged against a ruling on the costs of proceedings (see paragraph 59 above), the Government averred that the lodging of a petition for constitutional review had had much greater chances of success. 70.     The Government further submitted the Rijeka Administrative Court had not had the power to apply the Constitution directly to override the statutory provision. That court could have only lodged an application for constitutional review of the impugned provision (see section 37(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, cited in paragraph 38 above). However, the applicant could not have expected it to do so as that would have required it to stay the proceedings (ibid.) – which had been of existential importance for her – sine die as it could not have predicted when the Constitutional Court would deliver a decision on such an application. Contrary to the applicant’s argument (see paragraph 72 below), a partial stay of the proceedings would not have been possible. (ii)      The applicant 71.     The applicant replied that it was unreasonable to say that she should have lodged a petition for constitutional review, as the Government had suggested, in a situation where she had already raised all the relevant Convention and Constitution-based arguments in the judicial review proceedings complained of in which she had also lodged a constitutional complaint (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above). 72 .     Faced with her arguments, the Rijeka Administrative Court could itself have lodged an application for constitutional review (see section 37(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, cited in paragraph 38 above). In so doing, that court could have stayed the judicial review proceedings just in the part regarding costs and could have continued the examination of the case in the part concerning her disability pension. 73.     Likewise, following her constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court could have instituted constitutional review proceedings of its own motion (see section 38(2) of the Constitutional Court Act, cited in paragraph   38 above). 74.     Lastly, the applicant submitted that lodging the petition suggested by the Government would have led to an abstract review of the constitutionality of section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act as in force at the time (see paragraph 42 above), whereas she had complained of a   breach of the Convention in her particular case and in that regard had exhausted all the available remedies. 75.     In any event, even if she had lodged such a petition, that would not have interrupted the running of the six-month time-limit, which, according to the Government (see paragraphs 58-60 above), had started to run from service of the Rijeka Administrative Court’s judgment of 21 August 2014. (b)    The Court’s assessment 76.     The Court considers that, for the reasons set out below (see paragraphs 77-81), it may leave open the issue whether a petition for constitutional review under Croatian law could be regarded as an effective remedy which applicants must use in order to comply with their obligation under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to exhaust domestic remedies. That is so because even assuming that such a petition can be considered an effective remedy, the applicant did not have to use it in the present case. 77 .     The Court reiterates that that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004‑V (extracts); Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR   2005‑XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary , no. 39311/05, § 14, 28   April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR   1999   III). Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium , nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 84, 24   January   2008; Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, §§ 44 et seq., 19   February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; and Lagutin and Others v. Russia , nos. 6228/09 and 4 others, § 75, 24   April   2014). It is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate in his or her case (see O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 110-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective (see Jasinskis   v.   Latvia , no. 45744/08, §§ 50 and 53-54, 21 December 2010). 78 .     In this connection, the Court notes that the applicant argued before the Rijeka Administrative Court that section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, as amended by the 2012 Amendments, was in breach of the right of access to a court and thus contrary to the Croatian Constitution and Article   6   § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 18 above). She thus raised the same complaint as in her subsequent application to the Court (see paragraph 56 above). The Rijeka Administrative Court in its judgment of 21   August 2014 expressly addressed that argument and dismissed it, finding that the impugned provision was not contrary to the Croatian Constitution or the Convention (see paragraph 19 above). 79.     Had it agreed with the applicant, the Rijeka Administrative Court could have either stayed the proceedings and lodged an application for constitutional review with the Constitutional Court (see section 37(1) of the Constitutional Court Act, cited in paragraph 38 above), or would have applied the Convention directly, it being understood that the Convention forms an integral part of the Croatian legal system in which it takes precedence over domestic statutes and is directly applicable (see Articles   115 § 3 and 134 of the Croatian Constitution, cited in paragraph 37 above; see also Habulinec and Filipović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 51166/10, 4   June   2013, and Bogunović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 18221/03, 11 July 2006). 80.     The Court also notes that in her constitutional complaint of 9   October 2014 the applicant repeated, in substance, the same arguments she had advanced before the Rijeka Administrative Court (see paragraphs   18, 21 and 78 above and compare with Popović and Others   v.   Serbia , nos. 26944/13 and 3 others, § 60, 30 June 2020). At that time the proceedings for constitutional review of section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act, as amended by the 2012 Amendments, were already under way (see paragraph 48 above). The Constitutional Court could have thus deferred the examination of the applicant’s constitutional complaint until it rendered a   decision in those proceedings. 81 .     The applicant thus provided the domestic courts with sufficient opportunity to remedy the alleged violation of her right of access to a court. Consequently, having regard to the Court’s case-law (see paragraph 77 above), the applicant could not have been requi