CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s270DEA8C { width:80.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA38C12E2 { width:9.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5B1078AF { width:27.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5BA40C0D { width:17.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A619118 { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDC175EC3 { width:21.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6423D807 { width:9.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s980143DB { width:27.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF92589A6 { width:17.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3341B7AF { width:23.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1733C187 { width:21.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 5 February 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12947/22 Ilija ANDRIJANIĆ and Others against Croatia lodged on 28 February 2022 communicated on 17 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for damages which the applicants instituted against two insurance companies after the death of their wife and mother. By a first instance judgment rendered in 1991, the applicants were awarded half of the amount claimed. The sum awarded was paid to them in full in the then currency, Croatian dinars, by one of the respondents, even before the first instance judgment became final. On appeal, the second instance court quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case, which was then stayed between 1993 and 2011 apparently because the respondent companies, which were based abroad, were undergoing structural changes. Once the case resumed, the applicants adjusted their claim in accordance with the currency and prices applicable on that day, maintaining the entirety of their claim. In 2014 the first instance court dismissed their claim in its entirety, concluding that one of the respondents already had paid them the total amount of damages on the basis of the 1991 judgment, and that the applicants had thus been fully compensated. It had therefore not been necessary to pursue the proceedings any longer. At the same time, the court ordered the applicants to pay to the respondents in costs of proceedings some 87,200 Croatian kunas (HRK) (approximately EUR 11,600), whereas the amount they had been awarded in damages in 1991, due to the depreciation and change of currency at the time of the 2014 judgment had amounted to 0,50 HRK. Their further appeals were dismissed, including their constitutional complaint by a decision rendered on 22 September 2021. The applicants complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the excessively high costs of proceedings they were ordered to pay to the respondent companies. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the allegedly excessive award of costs of proceedings to the respective respondents violated the applicants’ right of access to court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Čolić v. Croatia , no. 49083/18, §§   39 ‑ 60, 18 November 2021; Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, §§ 76-97, 18 July 2013)?       APPENDIX Application no. 12947/22   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Ilija ANDRIJANIĆ 1971 Croatian Slavonski Brod 2. Mijo ANDRIJANIĆ 1968 Croatian Slavonski Brod 3. Kata BUNČIĆ 1974 Croatian Slavonski Brod 4. Anđa MATOŠEVIĆ 1966 Croatian Slavonski Brod 5. Mara PIFAR   Croatian Slavonski Brod