CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 mars 2013

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom: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. 161 March 2013 Galović v. Croatia (dec.) - 54388/09 Decision 5.3.2013 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Complaint relating to delays in proceedings that actually operated to applicant tenant’s advantage: inadmissible   Facts – In 1999 the owner of a flat in which the applicant lived obtained a court order for her eviction. That order was upheld on appeal. The applicant then lodged a constitutional appeal which was dismissed just over six years later. In her application to the European Court the applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): The length of the proceedings had in fact benefited the applicant by postponing the enforcement of her eviction for over six years. In the Court’s view, this had compensated for or at least significantly reduced the damage normally entailed by the excessive length of civil proceedings, so the applicant had not suffered a “significant disadvantage” in respect of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The issue of the length of civil proceedings in Croatia had already been addressed by the Court on numerous occasions so that respect for human rights did not require an examination of the complaint on its merits. As to whether the case had been “duly considered by a domestic tribunal”, both the action for the applicant’s eviction and her counterclaim had been “duly considered” at first and second instance and by the Constitutional Court. In addition, the Court noted that under its case-law on Article   13, the right to an effective remedy in respect of an alleged violation of a Convention right by a last-instance judicial authority was implicitly restricted. Thus, for example, the absence of a remedy in respect of a Constitutional Court’s decision would not raise an issue under Article   13. Applying that reasoning mutatis mutandis to Article 35 §   3   (b) the Court considered that when examining whether the “significant disadvantage” admissibility criterion had been satisfied in cases where what was alleged was a violation of the Convention by a last-instance judicial authority, the Court could dispense with the requirement for the case to have been “duly considered by a domestic tribunal”. Otherwise it would be prevented from rejecting any claim, however insignificant, relating to alleged violations imputable to a final national instance. That would be neither appropriate nor consistent with the object and purpose of Article 35 §   3   (b). Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage). The Court also declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s further complaints under Articles 6 §   1, 8, 13 and   14 of the Convention.   © 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