CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 10 September 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53053/09 Pavle PANČEVSKI against Montenegro lodged on 15 September 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Pavle Pančevski, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Podgorica. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 July 2004 the applicant’s former daughter-in-law (“the plaintiff”) instituted civil proceedings against the applicant and his son (her former husband) seeking, inter alia , that she be recognised as one of the owners of a house, consisting of two flats and business premises, registered in the Real Estate Register as the applicant’s property. In so doing, she failed to specify the exact value of the claim in question ( vrijednost spora ), but she paid the court fees ( sudska taksa ) in the amount of 10 euros (EUR), which corresponded to the value of claims ranging between EUR 40 and EUR 125. In her statement of claim she submitted, however, that the construction of the house alone had been commenced with EUR 30,000. On 2 March 2007 the Court of First Instance ( Osnovni sud ) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff and recognised her as the owner of a quarter of the house in question. On 3 April 2007 the applicant appealed. He submitted, inter alia , that the first-instance court had not established the value of the real estate in question. On 28 October 2008 the High Court ( Viši sud ) in Podgorica upheld the first-instance judgment in substance endorsing the reasons thereof. It did not address the issue of the value of the claim. On 19 December 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) and submitted, inter alia , that neither the plaintiff nor the courts had specified the value of the claim, contrary to their statutory obligation. On 25 March 2009 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud ) in Podgorica rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. It stated that the plaintiff had failed to indicate the value of the claim and that the courts either of their motion or upon the applicant’s objection, had not established it, and that therefore the court fees paid by the plaintiff had indirectly set the value of the claim, in this case significantly below the statutory threshold (see section 382 (3) at B below).   B.     Relevant domestic law The Civil Procedure Act 1977 ( Zakon o parničnom postupku ; published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 4/77, 36/77, 6/80, 36/80, 43/82, 72/82, 69/82, 58/84, 74/87, 57/89, 20/90, 27/90 and 35/91, and in the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 27/92, 31/93, 24/94, 12/98, 15/98 and 3/02) provided in sections 35-40 general rules as regards the means of establishing the value of a civil claim. Section 40 (2) provided that in cases not relating to pecuniary requests the relevant value of the claim was the one indicated by the plaintiff in his/her claim. Section 40 (3) further provided that when the value specified by the plaintiff appeared to be obviously incorrect, the competent first-instance court would at the latest at the preliminary hearing ( pripremno ročiste ) or, if there was no preliminary hearing, at the main hearing before the examination of the merits, speedily and in an adequate manner check the accuracy of the specified value. Section 186 (2) provided that when the right to an appeal on points of law depended on the value of the claim “the plaintiff had a duty to indicate [the value of the claim] in the statement of claim”. Section 382 (3) provided that an appeal on points of law was not admissible in non-pecuniary matters where the value of the claim did not exceed approximately EUR 1,470. Under sections 383 and 394-397, inter alia , the Supreme Court could, should it accept an appeal on points of law lodged by one of the parties concerned, overturn the impugned judgment or quash it and order a re-trial before the lower courts. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about a lack of access to court, in that the Supreme Court refused to examine the merits of his appeal on points of law.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the decision of the Supreme Court of 25 March 2009 to declare the applicant’s appeal on points of law ( revizija ) inadmissible ratione valoris ( zbog vrijednosti predmeta spora ) in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the object of the claim at issue, and given the provisions of section 40 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act 1977, has the applicant suffered a violation of his right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article   6   § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Garzičić v. Montenegro , no. 17931/07, §§ 33-34, 21 September 2010; Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 32299/08, § 50, 2 October 2012; see also Delcourt v. Belgium , 17 January 1970, § 25, Series A no. 11)?