16 Aug Violation of the right to an affective remedy in Croatia

In the case of Ladan v. Croatia (application no. 56787/16, 11.05.2023) the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 13 (right to an affective remedy) of the European Convention Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. He also complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies available in that regard.

Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. In particular, even though a delay of one year and some nine months is attributable to the applicant, the Court, having regard to its case-law on the subject, considered that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was nevertheless excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

The Court noted that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. That was also the finding of the first-instance court which on 5 January 2022 awarded him compensation on that account in the above civil proceedings which are currently pending before appellate court. The Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In particular, the Government’s objection that this complaint is premature because the above-mentioned civil proceedings for compensation are still pending must be dismissed. To be considered effective such compensatory remedies for inadequate conditions of detention must conform to the reasonable-time requirement. Moreover, the speed of remedial action may be relevant in assessing whether a remedy, that is effective in principle, was also practically effective in the particular case for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 as excessive length of domestic proceedings may constitute a special circumstance absolving the applicants from exhausting domestic remedies. Having regard to its finding above that the civil proceedings in question failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement, the Court considered that the applicant therefore cannot be required to wait any longer for the final outcome of those civil proceedings.

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

Lastly, the applicant complained that the domestic remedies for inadequate conditions of detention had been ineffective in his case. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention.

The Court noted that on 16 August 2011 the applicant availed himself of the available preventive remedy and complained to the sentences‑execution judge about inadequate conditions of his detention in the Zagreb Prison. However, the sentences execution judge never decided on his complaint, which rendered that remedy ineffective. Likewise, the excessive length of the civil proceedings in the present case rendered the civil action for compensation, an otherwise effective remedy, ineffective. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

Reference from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights