CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 juillet 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 110 July 2008 Kaić and Others v. Croatia   - 22014/04 Judgment 17.7.2008 [Section I] Article 13 Effective remedy Insufficient compensation for length of proceedings coupled with the failure to speed up the proceedings at issue: violation   Facts : In 1994 the applicants brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court. In December 2002, while the proceedings were still pending at first instance, they lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. In November 2004 the Constitutional Court upheld the applicants’ complaint, finding a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded them about EUR 890 each in compensation and ordered the second-instance court to decide their case no later than six months following the publication of that decision. The Zagreb County Court did so a year later, in November 2005. Law : Article 6   §   1 – Owing to the low amount of compensation awarded, the applicants could still claim to be victims of the violation alleged. As the proceedings had lasted a total of some eight years before two levels of jurisdiction, the Court found that they had not been concluded within a reasonable time. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – The applicants had availed themselves of the effective remedy for the length of proceedings by lodging a complaint with the Constitutional Court. That court had awarded them compensation and ordered the Zagreb County Court, where the proceedings were at the time pending, to decide the applicants’ case within six months. However, that court did so with a six-month delay, which the Government had not attempted to justify. While it was true that insufficient compensation alone did not normally render a length-of-proceedings remedy ineffective, that failing had been reinforced by the Zagreb County Court’s failure to execute the Constitutional Court’s decision in a timely manner. Consequently, the combination of these two factors in the particular circumstances of the present case had rendered an otherwise effective remedy ineffective. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 1,350 each in respect of non-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