CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sC9E44DFD { height:47pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s39976575 { height:37.25pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC1E94DFD { height:46pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 1 September 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 11388/15 Jela GLAVINIĆ against Croatia and 3 other applications (see list appended) statement of facts The applicants are Croatian nationals, with the exception of the third applicant (application no. 22279/15) who is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The applicants’ personal details, the names of their representatives and the details regarding the length of the impugned proceedings are indicated the table annexed below. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were parties to the civil (applications no. 11388/15 and 22279/15) and enforcement proceedings (applications no. 20206/15 and 33590/15). On an unspecified date the applicants resorted to purely acceleratory length-of-proceedings remedy under the 2013 Courts Act. In particular, the applicants lodged requests for protection of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the presidents of the courts before which their proceedings were pending. Their requests were granted and the court presidents ordered judges hearing their cases to give decisions or complete the enforcement within specific time-limits. Since those time-limits were not complied with, the applicants resorted to combined (acceleratory-compensatory) remedy under the 2013 Courts Act; namely, they sought compensation before the higher court. The applicants’ claims were granted save for the applicant’s claim in application no.   22279/15, which was dismissed. The applicants’ further appeals to the Supreme Court were all dismissed. None of the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the Supreme Court’s decisions. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, §§ 22-27, 7 July 2016, and Vrtar v. Croatia , no.   39380/13, §§ 63-64 and 78, 7 January 2016. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil or enforcement proceedings. In particular, the applicant in application no. 22279/15 complains that he was not awarded any compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings whereas the remaining applicants complain that the domestic courts awarded them insufficient compensation. 2.     Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   22279/15 alleges further that he was denied an effective remedy in respect of his complaint concerning the excessive length of proceedings.     COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Were the applicants required to lodge constitutional complaints against the Supreme Court’s decisions in their cases in order to (fully) exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Under the case-law of the Constitutional Court are such decisions open to constitutional review by means of individual constitutional complaint?   2.     If the applicants were not required to lodge constitutional complaints, was the length of the proceedings in their cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?       APPENDIX No. Application no. and the date of introduction Applicant name date of birth and the place of residence Represented by Type of proceedings     Period to be taken into consideration (and number of instances) Awarded   11388/15 27/02/2015 Jela GLAVINIĆ 14/04/1947 Rijeka   Vladimir MARGAN Civil proceedings Eleven years and five months before one instance 130   20206/15 21/04/2015 Maša KOCIJAN 08/10/1990 Belica   Nevenka HLEBAR Enforcement proceedings (for recovery of child support) Nine years and six months 652   22279/15 30/04/2015 Zurahid BRIČIĆ 27/03/1969 Gradačac   Dražen ŠTIVIĆ Civil proceedings Ten years and eleven months before three instances N/A   33590/15 18/06/2015 Domeniko JOVANOVIĆ 20/12/1950 Rijeka   Vladimir MARGAN Enforcement proceedings Fourteen years and one month 1,040