CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 4 December 2020 Published on 21 December 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13308/19 Jasminka MENDEŠ against Croatia lodged on 4 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive costs of civil proceedings. In 2005 the State lodged an action against the applicant, seeking to establish that a property gift contract concluded between the applicant and her mother produced no effect towards the State and to allow the sale of the said property in order to settle her mother’s tax debt. During the proceedings her mother reached a settlement with the tax authority and paid the debt. Consequently, the State, represented by the State Attorney’s Office, withdrew the civil action against the applicant but sought reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings. The domestic courts ordered the applicant to pay the State 45,500 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 6,150 euros) holding that, inter alia , the action had been withdrawn after the claim had been satisfied. The applicant complains, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the excessive costs of the proceedings and the allegedly arbitrary nature of the domestic courts’ decisions in that respect.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the allegedly excessive award of costs of proceedings in the present case violated the applicant’s right of access to court guaranteed under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and/or her right to the enjoyment of possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (cf.   Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013; Cindrić and Bešlić v.   Croatia , no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016)? In particular, has the order for her to pay the costs of the proceedings been arbitrary and/or inconsistent with previous practice in similar cases?