issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 181 (2018)
22.05.2018
Croatian Supreme Court change to way it applied law
in property inheritance claim was in line with European Convention
European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned Ms Jureša’s complaint that she had not been allowed to appeal to the Supreme
Court in a property inheritance dispute.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court had declared Ms Jureša’s appeal on points of law
inadmissible because the value of the dispute had not reached the necessary legal threshold. That
decision had been a reversal of previous Supreme Court case-law on such issues.
The Court found that such changes in case-law, involving the interpretation and application of
legislation, were within the discretion of domestic courts, in the absence of arbitrariness and where
not manifestly unreasonable. As that had been the case in this application, there had been no
violation of Ms Jureša’s rights.
Principal facts
The applicant, Ivana Jureša, is a Croatian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Osijek (Croatia).
A relative of Ms Jureša’s went to court in October 2007 to have a share of a property they had both
inherited registered in his name. He set the value of the dispute at 110,000 Croatian kunas. The
first-instance court ruled in favour of the relative in April 2008, which was upheld on appeal.
Ms Jureša lodged an appeal on points of law in November 2009, but in May 2010 the Supreme Court
declared it inadmissible as the value of the dispute was below the threshold of 100,001 kunas (about
13,300 euros) for such appeals. It found that the dispute involved two separate claims, one for
recognition of ownership and the other for obtaining an order to register his ownership in the land
register (issuance of a clausula intabulandi).
The Supreme Court therefore found that each claim was worth half of the initial total amount, and
that therefore both were below the threshold. In February 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed
an appeal by Ms Jureša, who argued that her relative’s claims had two aspects that could not be
separated and that the Supreme Court’s decision had been arbitrary.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that she had been deprived of
access to the Supreme Court.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 March 2011.
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
