CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 199 August-September 2016 Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia - 72152/13 Judgment 6.9.2016 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Costs ordered in civil proceedings amounted to disproportionate burden: violation Facts – In January 1992, during the war in Croatia, the applicants’ parents were taken from their home in the then occupied part of the country by two men and shot dead. The investigation into their deaths is ongoing. The applicants brought an unsuccessful civil action in connection with the killings against the State and were ordered to pay costs in the amount of approximately EUR 6,800, which in their view breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and their right of access to a court. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Court considered that the costs order amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that the interference had been lawful and pursued a legitimate aim. The key issue was whether a fair balance had been struck between the general interest and the applicants’ rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court had to ascertain whether, by reason of the State’s interference, the applicants had had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden. It had been alleged that the applicants’ parents had been abducted from their home in a then occupied village by two police officers, taken to a nearby village and shot dead, solely because of their Croatian ethnic origin. The civil claim had been dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that the State had not been liable for damage resulting from the killings committed on territory which at the material time had been outside their control. As such, the applicants had been ordered to reimburse the costs of the State’s representation by the State Attorney’s Office in an amount equal to that of an advocate’s fee. It could not be said that the applicants’ civil action against the State was entirely devoid of any substance or was manifestly unreasonable. The applicants’ view that the damage caused to them by the killing of their parents had been covered by the relevant legislation had not been unreasonable, since at that time it had not been possible for them to know how that legislation would be interpreted. The Court attached considerable importance to the fact that the opposing party in the proceedings at issue was the Croatian State, represented by the State Attorney’s Office and that the costs of that office in the civil proceedings at issue were assessed on the basis of an advocate’s fee. However, that office, since it was financed from the State budget, was not in the same position as an advocate. Another important factor was that of the applicants’ individual financial situation. The Court accepted that paying the amount ordered by the national courts appeared burdensome for them. In light of these factors, the Court considered that ordering the applicants to bear the full costs of the State’s representation in the proceedings at issue amounted to a disproportionate burden on them. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (as there had been a disproportionate restriction of the applicants’ right of access to court) and that there had been no violation of Article   2 (right to life). Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary; EUR 3,400 in respect of pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes