CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 mai 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s74440B0 { width:198.81pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 72233/01 by STUDIO G-3 ZAGREB against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30   May   2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   E. Steiner , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 June 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Studio G-3 Zagreb, is a company from Zagreb. It is represented before the Court by Mr Boris Kozjak, a lawyer practising in Virovitica. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 7 July 1993 the applicant company was sued before the Zagreb Municipal Court. The plaintiff, O.M., sought payment for her lawyer’s fees. On 2 November 1993 the Zagreb Municipal Court awarded the claim. On 14 April 1994 the applicant company appealed against the judgment. On 11 April 1995 the Zagreb County Court upheld the first instance judgment. On 20 June 1995 the applicant company filed a request for revision on points of law before the Supreme Court. On 9 November 2000 amendments to the Constitution were enacted that, inter alia , introduced a guarantee of fair trial. On 26 June 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the request. B.     Relevant domestic law Section 26 of the Constitution, enacted on 9 November 2000 provides, inter alia , that in determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by a tribunal. Section 28 § 1 provides that every person, who considers that any of his constitutional rights has been violated by a decision of a judicial or administrative body or any other body invested with public authority, may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings and that the proceedings were unfair. THE LAW The applicant company complains that the civil proceedings instituted before the Zagreb Municipal Court on 7 July 1993 and concluded by the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26 June 2001 lasted unreasonably long. It further complains that the proceedings were not fair because it was not permitted to present evidence in the trial proceedings. Furthermore, it alleges that the courts did not give adequate reasoning of their decisions. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time [a] ... tribunal established by law. 1.     As to the complaint about the length of proceedings the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54   §   3   (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   2.     As to the complaint about the fairness of the proceedings the Court observes that on 9 November 2000 the amendments to the Constitution were enacted which provided, inter alia , that in determination of his civil rights everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by a tribunal. Under Croatian law, everyone who deems that his constitutional rights have been violated may apply to the Constitutional Court for protection. Therefore, after the applicant company had received the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26 June 2001, it could have filed a constitutional complaint concerning the alleged violation of its right to a fair hearing, but it failed to do so. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Erik Fribergh   Christos R OZAKIS   Registrar   President