CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s9EBDBB25 { width:12.24pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s319372BC { width:122.43pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 27169/17 Ante MRĐEN against Croatia (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström, President,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4   April 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr D. Jurjević, a lawyer practising in Zadar. In his application to the Court the applicant only complained of the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings. That complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the delayed enforcement of a domestic decision was communicated to the Croatian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Court notes that: - on 21 November 2008 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for disturbance of possession which lasted until 11 February 2013 and ended with a decision in his favour, whereupon he, on 6   March 2013, instituted enforcement proceedings; - in a decision of 15   December 2020 the Constitutional Court found that the combined length of the civil and enforcement proceedings in question was in violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him compensation and ordered the enforcement court to deliver a decision in the case within six months; the time-limit was complied with on 5 July 2021; - the applicant was awarded a total of 31,680 Croatian kunas (HRK) as compensation for the excessive length of the abovementioned civil and enforcement proceedings. Despite the fact that the enforcement proceedings are still pending, the Court considers that by the very recent domestic decision (see   paragraph   above) the applicant was awarded compensation for the lengthy non-enforcement of the decision in question in the amount sufficient to strip him of the status of a “victim”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, for a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The applicant argued that he had also sustained pecuniary damage for which he had received no compensation. Specifically, since he had been unable to regain possession of a part of his house for a prolonged period, he had incurred additional costs, including the costs of alternative accommodation. In this regard the Court first notes that this damage mainly stems from the unlawful conduct of enforcement debtors, who, regardless of the State’s obligations under the Convention in the enforcement of judicial decisions, were bound to surrender the relevant part of the house in question to the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Lo Tufo v. Italy , no. 64663/01, § 68, ECHR 2005-III). It further notes that under domestic law the applicant is entitled to bring a civil action against the enforcement debtors to seek compensation for such damage (ibid., § 67). However, he did not do so. In view of the above, and given a very short period of the non ‑ enforcement following the adoption of the domestic compensatory decision, the Court finds that the present application is inadmissible and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 October 2021. _1}   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Erik Wennerström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Relevant domestic decision to be enforced Relevant starting date End date of non ‑ enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings 27169/17 04/04/2017 Ante MRĐEN 1941 Jurjević Dragan Zadar Zadar Municipal Court, no. P-3304/08 of 19/06/2012 (Enforcement proceedings nos. Ovr-660/13, Ovr-2452/14 and Ovr-1601/16) 06/03/2013     pending More than 8 years and 6   months