BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF RIZMAN v. CROATIA
(Application
no. 28704/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31
July 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Rizman v. Croatia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos
Rozakis,
President,
Nina
Vajić,
Khanlar
Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre
Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George
Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 July 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 28704/06) against the Republic
of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Ivan Rizman (“the
applicant”), on 30 May 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mrs M. Okić, a lawyer practising in
Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. StaZnik.
3. On
1 October 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. It also
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Lipovljani.
- On
15 April 1993 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb
Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against his
employer, the company I., seeking damages for an injury sustained in
the workplace.
- On
21 June 1994 the court gave judgment, which was quashed by the Zagreb
County Court (Zupanijski sud u Zagrebu) on 19 September 1999.
- In
2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the
length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court
Act. On 20 December 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud
Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant’s complaint,
finding a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable
time and awarding him compensation in the amount of 5,100 Croatian
kunas (HRK). It also ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the
applicant’s case in the shortest time possible but no later
than ten months following the publication of the decision in the
Official Gazette. The decision was published on 12 January 2005.
- On
1 February 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing
the applicant’s claim. The judgment was quashed on appeal by
the Zagreb County Court on 16 October 2007 and the case was remitted
to the Municipal Court, where the proceedings are currently pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant part of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court
(Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske, Official
Gazette no. 49/2002 of 3 May 2002 – “the Constitutional
Court Act”) reads as follows:
Section 63
“(1) The Constitutional Court shall examine a
constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been
exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning
the applicant’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge
against him or her within a reasonable time ...
(2) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph 1
of this section is upheld, the Constitutional Court shall set a
time-limit within which the competent court must decide the case on
the merits...
(3) In a decision issued under paragraph 2 of this
section, the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate
compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her
constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the
State budget within three months from the date a request for payment
is lodged.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the length of the civil proceedings under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which
reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The Court considers that the period to be taken into
consideration began on 6 November 1997, the day after the entry
into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia. However, in
assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that
date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
In this connection the Court notes that the proceedings commenced on
15 April 1993, when the applicant brought his civil action. Thus,
they were pending for about four years and six months before the
ratification.
- The
proceedings are still pending. They thus have lasted about another
three years and six months after the Constitutional Court’s
decision. During that time the case has been examined at two levels
of jurisdiction. Thus, in total, the case has been pending for more
than ten years and six months after the ratification.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a
victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention since the
Constitutional Court had accepted the applicant’s
constitutional complaint, found a violation of his constitutional
right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and awarded him
compensation. The violation complained of had, therefore, been
remedied before the domestic authorities and the applicant had lost
his victim status.
- The
applicant disagreed.
- The
Court notes that at the time when the Constitutional Court’s
judgment was given the proceedings had been pending for 7 years and
one month at two levels of jurisdiction, after the ratification of
the Convention by Croatia. The just satisfaction awarded by the
Constitutional Court does not correspond to what the Court would have
been likely to award under Article 41 of the Convention in respect of
the same period, due account being taken of the fact that the case
concerns an employment dispute. It therefore cannot be regarded as
adequate in the circumstances of the case (see the principles
established under the Court’s case-law in Cocchiarella
v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107,
ECHR 2006-... or Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97,
§§ 178-213, ECHR 2006 - ...). In these circumstances, in
respect of the period covered by the Constitutional Court’s
finding the applicant has not lost his status as a victim within the
meaning of Article 41 of the Convention.
- The
Court notes further that the proceedings are still pending and that,
therefore, it is called upon to examine the overall length of
proceedings.
- Having regard to the above facts the Court considers
that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It also notes that it is
not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see, among many authorities, Husić v. Croatia,
no. 14878/04, 25 October 2007).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court concurs with the
Constitutional Court that in the instant case the length of the
proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
- As
regards the period subsequent to the delivery of the Constitutional
Court’s decision, the Court notes that the proceedings were
examined at two levels of jurisdiction and are presently pending
before the court of first instance. Having regard to this and the
overall length of the proceedings, the Court considers that the
applicant has not been afforded a trial within a reasonable time.
- In
view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has
been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 5,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government deemed the amount claimed excessive.
- The
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 974 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- The
Government did not comment on the matter.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
awards the amount claimed plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts which are to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
974 (nine hundred and seventy-four euros) in respect of costs and
expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
