CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s413DDDCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:288pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 30 March 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31691/14 Ivan PINTARIĆ against Croatia lodged on 15 April 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ivan Pintarić, is a Slovenian national, who was born in   1947 and lives in Celje, Slovenia. He is represented before the Court by Ms   G. Brnić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 March 1991 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) against a certain M.K and K.K., seeking to have a gift agreement concluded between his late father and the defendants cancelled as voidable. In his claim ( tužba ) the applicant indicated 35,000 Yugoslav dinars (YUD) as the value of the subject matter of the dispute ( vrijednost predmeta spora ). On 23   December 1991 Croatia introduced its own currency, the Croatian dinar (HRD). The Yugoslav dinar was replaced by the Croatian dinar at an exchange rate of YUD 1 to HRD 1. On 13 May 1994 the Croatian kuna (HRK) was introduced as the Croatian currency. The Croatian dinar was replaced by the Croatian kuna at an exchange rate of HRD 1,000 to HRK 1. On 5 May 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court closed the main hearing and by a judgment of 20 May 2005 it ruled in favour of the applicant. By a judgment of 7   December 2008 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) dismissed an appeal by the defendants and upheld the first-instance judgment. On 27 January 2009 the defendants lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against the second-instance judgment. They invited the Supreme Court to decide whether their appeal was admissible ratione valoris having regard to the multiple amendments to the Civil Procedure Act enacted during the proceedings (see below under Relevant domestic law). On 11 September 2009 the applicant submitted his reply to the appeal on points of law, asking the Supreme Court to declare it inadmissible ratione valoris . On 26 September 2012 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal on points of law and reversed the judgments of the lower courts by dismissing the applicant’s action. It gave no reasoning on the issue of the admissibility of the appeal on points of law. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint. He complained, inter alia , that his right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 29 of the Croatian Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, had been violated when the Supreme Court had reversed the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed his action without even addressing the issue of admissibility of that appeal. By a decision of 2 October 2013 Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that the case raised no constitutional issue. On 17 October 2013 it served its decision on the applicant’s representative. B.     Relevant domestic law 1.   The Civil Procedure Act The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no. 4/1977 with subsequent amendments, and Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no. 53/1991 with subsequent amendments), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES 1.     Appeal on points of law   Section 382(1) provides that the parties may lodge an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against a second-instance judgment if the value of the subject matter of the dispute of the contested part of the judgment exceeds a certain amount of money (that is to say, the statutory threshold). The statutory threshold in civil (that is, non-commercial) cases were changed as follows:   Currency Value Period   YUD 5,000 1 July 1977 – 26 November 1982 YUD 50,000 27 November 1982 – 21 November 1987 YUD 800,000 22 November 1987 – 5 October 1989 YUD 8,000,000 6 October 1989 – 31 December 1989 YUD 800 1 January 1990 – 10 April 1990 YUD 8,000 11 April 1990 – 22 December 1991 HRD 8,000 23   December 1991 – 7 January 1993 HRD 3,000,000 8 January 1993 – 12 May 1994 HRK HRK HRK 3,000 100,000 200,000   13 May 1994 – 5 November 1999 6 November 1999 – 1 June 2011 after 2 June 2011 2. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act On 8 January 1993 the 1992 Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act entered into force. They raised the statutory threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) to the Supreme Court in civil matters from HRD   8,000 to HRD   3,000,000 (i.e. HRK 3,000 after the introduction of Croatian kuna on 13   May 1994). The transitional provisions of those amendments provided that previous rules were to apply to civil proceedings in which the first-instance decision or judgment had been rendered before the entry into force of those amendments. However, if such a decision or judgment had been quashed after the entry into force of those amendments, the resumed proceedings had to be conducted under the new rules. Lastly, an appeal on points of law lodged against a second-instance judgment rendered in the proceedings instituted before the entry into force of those amendments had to be decided under the previous rules. On 6 November 1999 the 1999 Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o parničnom postupku , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no. 112/1999 of 29 October 1999) entered into force. They raised the statutory threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law from HRK   3,000 to HRK 100,000. Accordingly, from then on, for such an appeal to be admissible ratione valoris in civil matters, the value of the subject matter of the dispute had to exceed the latter amount. Section 10 provided that the amendments were immediately applicable to pending proceedings except to those cases in which an appeal on points of law had already been lodged. The further, 2003 and 2008, Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act brought significant changes to section 382 of that Act but retained HRK   100,000 as the statutory threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law. The transitional provisions of the 2003 Amendments, which entered into force on 1 December 2003, provided that those changes applied to all civil proceedings in which the main hearing had been closed after the entry into force of those amendments. The transitional provisions of the 2008 Amendments, which entered into force on 1 October 2008, provided that the changes applied to all pending civil proceedings in which a second-instance judgment had been rendered after the entry into force of those amendments. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court’s judgment was in violation of his right to a fair hearing, in particular the right to a reasoned judgment.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Supreme Court in its judgment of 26 September 2012 address the applicant’s argument that the appeal on points of law was inadmissible ratione valoris ?   2.     If not, was the Supreme Court’s judgment sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?