TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): Further, the value of the dispute set at 10,000 kunas for a civil action to have the contract for the exchange of houses declared null and void was not an unreasonable one, since the subject of the civil proceedings in question was not the value of the exchange houses, nor was the value of the applicant's house, but merely the declaration of a contract null and void.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the subject matter of this case was not monetary in nature.
GR2 (Government): Speaking in terms of the Convention and the language of the Court, the subject of the proceedings did not fall within the Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, but stayed within Article 6.
GR2 (Government): By lodging the named action and setting up the value of the dispute, the rules of the game were set and the parties started litigation on the merits of the case.
GR2 (Government): Nevertheless, almost three years later, the applicant's predecessor attempted to change his litigation strategy and unilaterally raised the value of the dispute at 100,000-5,000 kunas, which would then secure him access to the Supreme Court.
GR2 (Government): However, what the applicant's predecessor conveniently forgot or simply did not care is that at this phase of the proceedings, after the parties have begun litigation on merits, domestic law, the Civil Procedure Act, explicitly and undoubtedly prohibits a change in value of the subject matter of dispute.
GR2 (Government): The domestic law and the case law of the Supreme Court are consistent for decades and perfectly clear on this.
GR2 (Government): The same law was also valid at the time the applicant's predecessor lodged civil action before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the applicant's predecessor and his lawyer must have known about the consequences of their actions and the fact that under the applicable procedural law, the relevant value of the dispute would stay at 10,000 kunas, as initially indicated in the filed action.
GR2 (Government): Consequently, Razione Valori's inadmissibility of their appeal on points of law came as no surprise.
GR2 (Government): Honorable judges of the Grand Chamber, the respondent states reiterates that the applicant was not denied the access to the Supreme Court, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention.
GR2 (Government): In fact, her case was decided in merits on two instances, at Dubrovnik Municipal Court and Dubrovnik County Court.
GR2 (Government): The fact that her appeal on points of law was inadmissible doesn't constitute a violation of Article 6.
GR2 (Government): The respondent state emphasizes that the applicant's appeal on point of law was not declared inadmissible as a result on an overly formalistic interpretation of domestic law, nor did it impair the essence of the right to access to court.
GR2 (Government): The Supreme Court merely applied clear and precise provisions of the relevant procedural law in a foreseeable manner, in accordance with its constitutional law role and its longstanding case law.
GR2 (Government): Its decision was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable.
GR2 (Government): It is, in fact, a prime example of the principle justice seemed to be done in practice.
GR2 (Government): Precisely by applying the provisions of domestic procedural law, the Supreme Court fulfilled its main role of the guardian of the rule of law.
GR2 (Government): The proper application of statutory procedural rules is crucial for proper administration of justice.
GR2 (Government): The Supreme Court could not have allowed procedural or substantive errors to exist and had to rectify them in a manner which ensured observance of rights of all parties in the proceedings.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, it would be contrary to the Supreme Court's role in the domestic legal system to be bound by the errors of the parties to the proceedings, by errors or determinations of lower courts, or to allow one party to the proceedings to take advantage of his or her errors.
GR2 (Government): This is especially important in case of admissibility of extraordinary remedies, since this issue is in the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court.
GR2 (Government): As we already shown in the written pleading before the Grand Chamber and through the proceedings before the Chamber, the applicant was not denied access to the Supreme Court, although her appeal on points of law was declared ratione valoris inadmissible.
GR2 (Government): Namely, Croatian legal system recognizes two types of the appeal on points of law.
GR2 (Government): One, so-called ordinary appeal on points of law, which the applicant used, and another one also prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act, extraordinary appeal on points of law.
GR2 (Government): This second type of the appeal on points of law, the extraordinary appeal on points of law, can be lodged in cases when the ordinary appeal on points of law is not allowed for whatever of the prescribed reasons.
GR2 (Government): It will be admissible if the decision in civil dispute depends on the resolution of a substantive or procedural issue important to uniform application of the law and equality of all in the application of law.
GR2 (Government): Namely, the second type of the appeal on points of law is reserved for cases raising important legal issues, such as uniform and consistent application of the law.
GR2 (Government): Having this in mind, it can only be concluded that so-called extraordinary appeal on points of law was available to the applicant and securing her access to the Supreme Court.
GR2 (Government): The fact that this type of the appeal was not used by the applicant cannot be considered as a respondent state fault.
GR2 (Government): The Court has always found that the right of access to a court secured by Article 6 is not an absolute one, but may be subjected to limitations.
GR2 (Government): The right of access to a court by its very nature calls for regulation by the state.
GR2 (Government): In this respect, the contracted states enjoy certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to respect of the Convention's requirement rests with the Court.
GR2 (Government): Honorable judges, the respondent states would like to make some remarks by commenting some of the applicant's statements made in the written pleading and here today.
GR2 (Government): Firstly, we strongly disagree with the applicant's view that the case Dobrić v. Serbia is not applicable in this case.
GR2 (Government): In the case Dobrić, the Serbian Supreme Court did not accept the value of the subject of dispute agreed upon by the parties because there was no separate decision of the municipal court to that effect.
GR2 (Government): Also, like in Zubac's case, the plaintiff in Dobrić's case did not amend the value of the subject of the dispute while he was allowed to do so.
GR2 (Government): Thus, in Dobrić's case, just like in Zubac's case, the applicable value of the dispute was the one indicated by the plaintiff in the original civil action at the beginning of the procedure, or better to say at the appropriate phase of the procedure.
GR2 (Government): In Dobrić's case, the Court held that Serbian Supreme Court pursued a legitimate aim and that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aims sought.
GR2 (Government): Court further held that the Supreme Court was fully entitled to reject any appeal on points of law which is deemed inadmissible and was not bound by the lower court's mere reference to the new agreed-upon value as the value of the dispute in question.
GR2 (Government): Application of these principles established by the court to Zubac's case leads us to the conclusion that there was no violation of article in the present case.
GR2 (Government): The respondent states notes that now in the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the applicant for the first time claims that on the hearing of 6 April 2015 before the municipal court, the applicant's predecessor not only lodged proposal for an interim measure, but also requested that the power of attorney be declared invalid.
GR2 (Government): This is incorrect and misleading.
GR2 (Government): From the domestic court's case file, it is evident that on the named hearing, the applicant's predecessor wanted additional evidence to be taken, namely that the original of the power of attorney be obtained.
GR2 (Government): He did not submit an additional civil claim as the applicant incorrectly states.
GR2 (Government): Secondly, regarding the applicant's allegations that her predecessor was not properly represented during the domestic civil proceedings, it should be said that the decision to hire a lawyer was an act of free will and free choice of the applicant's predecessor.
GR2 (Government): Also, any dissatisfaction which the applicant's predecessor or applicant have with their representation in the domestic civil proceedings is entirely a matter of a private lawyer-client relationship.
GR2 (Government): The respondent says see no causal link between this and the state's responsibility under the convention.
GR2 (Government): However, we deem important to mention that all of the lawyers who represented the applicant's predecessor in the domestic civil proceedings had all rights to represent him before the court.
GR2 (Government): Also, for the further explanation, it is important to know that both Montenegrin and Croatian Civil Procedure Act originate from the very same 1976 Yugoslavian Civil Procedure Act.
GR2 (Government): In the part regarding the value of the subject matter of the dispute, they stayed at the same.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the applicant's predecessor's Montenegrin lawyer should have been well familiar with the relevant procedural provisions.
GR2 (Government): After all, ignoratio iuris nocit.
GR2 (Government): To conclude, the Supreme Court establishes its role of a guardian of the rule of law and of the uniform application of laws to its decisions upon the appeals.
GR2 (Government): Its decisions in concrete cases influence on the practice and decision-making on the lower courts.
GR2 (Government): The accomplishment of these goals set before the Supreme Court and the role the Supreme Court performs in the Croatian legal system is directly connected to the regime of the legal remedies which enable access to the Supreme Court.
GR2 (Government): Precisely because of this special role and the hierarchy position of the Supreme Court in Croatian legal system, not all cases and all appeals can be decided before the Supreme Court on merits.
GR2 (Government): The quality of realization of the goals which are set before the Supreme Court are in direct connection to the regulation of the access to the Supreme Court by parties.
GR2 (Government): The Supreme Court will be prevented from performing its functions if the parties do not have the possibility to access the Supreme Court, but also if the possibility is set on overly broad basis.
GR2 (Government): In both of these situations, the result would be similar, failure and impossibility of the Supreme Court to fulfill its constitutional assignment to harmonize the court's practice and subsequent development of the law.
GR2 (Government): We believe that in the present case, the Supreme Court brought a valid and justified decision on the admissibility of appeal on points of law.
GR2 (Government): This decision had a legitimate aim and was proportionate.
GR2 (Government): When deciding on this case, one should look at the proceedings as a whole and in particular at the fact that the applicant had been able to have her claim examined in fact and in law at two levels of jurisdiction.
GR2 (Government): Then one can only decide that the effect of the Supreme Court's decision and the interpretation adopted was in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.
GR2 (Government): Honorable judges of the Grand Chamber, I thank you for your attention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mrs. Stažnik and I thank both parties for their submissions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now I turn towards my colleagues, the judges of the Grand Chamber, to know whether they have questions to be put to the parties.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Yes, please judge Sicilianos.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Merci beaucoup, M. le Président.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Je voudrais poser 2 questions au parti.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): L'une pour le gouvernement, l'autre pour les requérants.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Pour le gouvernement, tout d'abord.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Le requérant prétend que les frais d'épargne ont été calculés par les juridictions compétentes sur la base de la valeur modifiée de l'objet de mitiges, c'est-à-dire 105 000 kounas.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Et il décède là une certaine contradiction entre le fait de calculer ces dépenses sur la base de la valeur modifiée, d'une part, et d'autre part, de rejeter cette même modification.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Je voudrais avoir votre réaction sur cet argument.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Pour le requérant, le gouvernement prétend, contrairement à ce que vous venez de dire, que l'avocat de Montenegro qui avait représenté le prédécesseur de la requérante avait bien le droit de le faire et que le code de procédure civile de Montenegro et de la Croatie avait essentiellement le même contenu et que, par conséquent, l'avocat du prédécesseur de la requérante connaissait bien les conséquences de son choix de préciser l'objet de litige à une valeur de 10 000 kounas.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): J'aimerais votre commentaire sur cette prétention de gouvernement.
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Judge): Merci beaucoup.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup.Yes, please, Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, please.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I have a question to the government.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): It's a point raised by the applicant, which I believe the government has not addressed, at least until now.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): It's about the clarity of the legal framework in Croatia on the admissibility criteria for an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): The point made by the applicant is that the situation is not entirely clear.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): There is some contradiction between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): There are contradictory positions on this precise topic.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I would like the government to elaborate on this argument, on this alleged contradiction between Supreme Court case law and the Constitutional Court case law.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much. Yes, Judge Turković please.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Just one question that caught my eye while the government was presenting, stating that actually the applicants only asked for the power of attorney to be given to the court and did not challenge the power of attorney.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And I will read from the Croatian file how it is stated.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): The power of attorney in the file is given two submissions.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): The first one, which asks for the power of attorney to be challenged, states that Vukasin Zubac allegedly gave his opponent Kosi Zubac for the termination of the contract for the replacement of the property.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And after that, it continues to ask for it to be put in the file.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): I would like to know if the government can comment on this.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): If there are no more questions, the court will now withdraw for 20 minutes, following which the parties will be able to submit brief observations in reply to each other's submissions and reply to the questions from the judges.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed. And I call Mr. Ban please.
AP1 (Applicant): Poštovani sude, časni sudci prvo će odgovoriti na pitanja kojim je postavio sud.
AP1 (Applicant): U stvari, samo jedno pitanje je bilo postavljeno za podnositeljcu zahtjeva odnosi se na predlaganje i promjenu vrijednosti spora po strane punomočnika tužitelja, odnosno pravnog prednika podnositeljce.
AP1 (Applicant): U stvari, stoje ovako. Tužbu je sastavio i predložio vrijednost spora
AP1 (Applicant): Unijom odvjetnih iz Crne Gore, koji nije imao pravo sastaviti tužbu za stupati pravnog prednika podnositeljce zahtjeva pred hrvatskim sudovima, što tužitel nije morao znati kao običan građani, kao lajk.
AP1 (Applicant): Odvjetnik iz Crne Gore je to trebalo znati. Dakle, to je njegova greška.
AP1 (Applicant): A greška je suda u Dubrovniku koja je uopće dopustio da počne postupak po tužbi koju je sastavio odvjetnik koji nije imao pravo sastaviti i koji nije imao pravo zastupati tužitelja.
AP1 (Applicant): Taj postupak je trebao nekoliko godina. Doduše nisu se vodile
AP1 (Applicant): rasprave o meritumu nego o proceduralnoj.
AP1 (Applicant): I tek kad je u taj postupak stupio odvjetnik iz Hrvatske, to sam ja bio.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, ja sam prvi put stupio na raspravu kad je kolega iz Crne Gore došao i praktično pet minuta prije rasprave me zamolio da ja pristupim na tu raspravu i dao mi upute jer da on ne može, on je više za stup.
AP1 (Applicant): I tad mogo ništa učiniti. Došao sam prvi put na raspravu.
AP1 (Applicant): Idući put sam došao i naravno da sam onda predložio da se promijeni vrijednost pora i smatrao da ima na to pravo.
AP1 (Applicant): Ako se ne gleda čisto formalistički, posebno što sam istovremeno podnio dva podneska koje je napisao tužitelj.
AP1 (Applicant): U jednom se tražilo utvrđivanje nevaljanosti punom oči temelje koji je sklopjen taj ugovor. To bi se moglo smatrati preinação tužbe.
AP1 (Applicant): Drugi zahtjev je bio ovaj zahtjev za donošenje prijevijenog mjeru.
AP1 (Applicant): Tu se slažem, to nije preinação tužbe, ali ovaj prvi zahtjev bi se mogao smatrati.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, bila su dva razloga za promjenu vrijednosti.
AP1 (Applicant): Prvi put se u biti ta vrijednost i mogla promijeniti na tom drugom ročištu kad sam ja zastupao stranku. A u tom ročištu su bila ponesena dva zahtjeva
AP1 (Applicant): koja bi se mogla prihvatiti kao preinačenje tužbe, bar prvi zahtjev.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče tvrdnje vlade, da je zakon bio isti i da je odvjetnik iz Srne Gore isto to mogao valjano i kvalitetno odraditi, ova tvrdnja naravno nije točna.
AP1 (Applicant): Zakon je bio isti do 1999. godine.
AP1 (Applicant): I prema tom zakonu koji je bio isti, ova tužba koja je sastavila odvjetnik iz Srne Gore bi bila valjana. Jer je dotad vrijednost spora bila 3000 kuna.
AP1 (Applicant): Od 6.11.1999 vrijednost predmeta spora kao limiza podnošenje revizije
AP1 (Applicant): se penje sa 3000 kuna na 100 000 kuna. Dakle, za ovu promijenu odvjetnike
AP1 (Applicant): Srne Gore nije znao, nije imao pojma. I sad vlada kaže treba poštivati zakone.
AP1 (Applicant): Slažem se, treba poštivati, ali u ovom predmetu hrvatski sudavi su sve zakone što je bilo nabijeno tumačili i primjenivali na štetu podnositeljice zahtjeva.
AP1 (Applicant): Što se tiče sudske prakse, vlada se poziva na navodnu ustavljenu praksu Vrhovnog suda. Takve prakse uočene nema. Ima samo jedan predmet
AP1 (Applicant): koji sam već obrazložio da je u suprotnosti sa ustavljenom prakstvom Vrhovnog suda koja, kaže, pospoje suprotno. Dakle, ja mogu priložiti
AP1 (Applicant): nekoliko presuda Vrhovnog suda iz kojih jasno je da je u ustavno-sustkoj praksi zauzajet stav da se odbacivanje revizije podnositelja kao nedopuštene zbog pogrešno utvođene vrijednosti preneta spora kao pretpostavke o kojoj ovisi nezina dopuštenost, smatra da je time povriježeno ustavno pravo podnositelja na pravni vijek. Dakle, to je odluka, evo, recimo,
AP1 (Applicant): konkretno nova na koju se poziva iz 2002. godine, 28. oživljaka 2002. godine.
AP1 (Applicant): Nadalje, predmet Dobrić, na koji se također poziva vlada, je posvena u sporednju. U tom predmetu tušitelj nije uoče promijenio vrijednost
AP1 (Applicant): preneta spora, za razliku od ovog, on je promijenio i smatra da ima razloga promijeniti vrijednost spora. Također ni prvostupanski ni drugostupanski
AP1 (Applicant): sudu predmetu Dobrić nisu ni na koji način utvrdili novu vrijednost spora.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, posve on je neusporediv slučaj. Vlada kaže, propisaj treba poštivati,
AP1 (Applicant): a sama on i podnosi sudu prijevod zakona o paničnom postupku u kojem je članak 40 sa stanjem kakav je bilo u vrijeme podnošenja revizije. Ali nije navijena vlada
AP1 (Applicant): da se taj članak nekoliko puta mijenjao od podnošenja tužbe je bila jedna situacija.
AP1 (Applicant): U vrijeme promjene vrijednosti spora je druga situacija i tek treća situacija pred podnošenje revizije. Vlada podnosi samo u treću verziju.
AP1 (Applicant): Evo, toliko što se tiče vlade i njeznog inzistiranja na poštivanju zakona i sudske praktice. Ne znam da li mi je vrijeme isteklo.
AP1 (Applicant): Ja sam pisao reviziju i da sam imao imalo odvojbi od opuštenosti revizije, sigurno bih bio, kao što inače čini kad nisam siguran, podnio istovremenost revizijom i ustavnu tužbu kako bi osigurao da se o meritumu sporaja raspravi pred Ustavnim sudom i pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava.
AP1 (Applicant): Nisam uovoče pomislio da bi se mogli dovedi situacija da Vrhovni sud ne prihvati reviziju zbog vrijednosti spora. Nisam i pomislio uovoče.
AP1 (Applicant): Dakle, poslije sam bio siguran da se to pitanje neće postaviti.
AP1 (Applicant): Ali nažalost, evo, postavilo se. Inače, za kraj htio bi samo ukazati
AP1 (Applicant): da članak 40. stavak 3 zakona o paničnom postupku na koji se vlada poziva,
AP1 (Applicant): a u kojem je navedeno da se o utvrđivanju vrijednosti preneta spora, odse ta vrijednost mora utvrditi najkasnije na ročništvu za glavnu raspravu.
AP1 (Applicant): Smatram da je to takvo formalističko ograničenje neukravdano i nerazmjerno svom cilju ubrzanja postupa koji se nastoji ostvariti, jer se time bitno ograničava pravo na pristup sudu. Na način da se narušava sama bit
AP1 (Applicant): tog prava u slučajima kad su razloze za nakladnu promjenu vrijednosti, odnosno ispravak vrijednosti preneta spora, iz opravljenih razloga nisu mogli predvidjeti, najkasnije do prvog ročništva za glavnu raspravu, kao što je to bio slučaj u premetu moje stranke.
AP1 (Applicant): Oviliko hvala na pažnju.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Ban.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call now Mrs. Stažnik, please, you have the floor.
GR2 (Government): I will address the first issue asked by Honorable Judge Sicilianos.
GR2 (Government): So as regards the costs of the proceedings, parties to the proceedings may claim as much as they want for costs.
GR2 (Government): The court is not bound by such a request.
GR2 (Government): Indeed, they will be granted only costs for the procedural actions deemed necessary for the conduct of the proceedings.
GR2 (Government): However, I would like to reiterate a bit more on that issue and would like to say that the issue of possible return of compensation with respect to access, sorry, with respect to the costs and expenses is essentially an issue to be considered under Article 1 of the Protocol 1 to the Convention.
GR2 (Government): The applicant could have complained about a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of possession, but she didn't do so.
GR2 (Government): The issue of the costs and expenses of the applicant, costs and expenses the applicant paid, was a direct consequence of the actions of her predecessors.
GR2 (Government): The domestic courts did not place the burden of their own errors on the applicant.
GR2 (Government): The main point the applicant is complaining about in admissibility of the appeal on points of law despite the costs paid is a burden placed on her by her predecessors' actions.
GR2 (Government): The applicant's predecessors knowingly made a choice and accepted that he might have to bear a disadvantageous consequences of such a choice.
GR2 (Government): In any event, the issue of the costs and expenses paid by the applicant should not be a tipping point in an access to the Supreme Court.
GR2 (Government): Because an access to the Supreme Court case has many specificities differentiating it from the other access to court cases.