CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 17 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25579/23 Zlatko KOVAČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 16 June 2023 communicated on 29 January 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the enforcement of a final domestic courts’ decision issued in summary civil proceedings for disturbance of possessions, whereby a certain company was ordered to return to the applicant radio equipment which it had previously removed from his roof. Such a decision can only be enforced if enforcement proceedings are instituted within a statutory time-limit of 30 days after the expiry of the grace period for voluntary compliance. When instituting enforcement proceedings, the enforcement creditor has a choice between seeking that his possessions be restored, or asking the court to order the enforcement debtor to pay court penalties until he complies with the obligation from the final decision. Since the company did not comply with the order within the grace period for voluntary compliance, i.e., by 28 December 2020, the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings in which he sought that the company be given an additional period to return the equipment and, in case of failure to do so, to pay court penalties ( sudski penali ) for every further day of delay. The domestic courts accepted the applicant’s request but limited the obligation to pay the court penalties to 30 days following the expiry of the additional period. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, that due to the domestic courts’ decisions to limit the duration of the obligation to pay the court penalties, regardless of whether the company had in the meantime fulfilled its primary obligation to return the equipment, he was prevented from obtaining enforcement of a final domestic courts’ decision in his favour. In particular, he submits that he can no longer seek the return of the equipment as ordered in that decision because the 30 days’ time-limit to do so has passed.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the domestic courts’ decisions to limit the duration of the company’s obligation to pay the court penalties contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see Ruianu v.   Romania , no. 34647/97, 17 June 2003; Burdov v. Russia (no.   2) , no.   33509/04, ECHR 2009; and Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish v.   Romania , no. 26270/04, 19 November 2013)?