European Court of Human Rights - case of Biondić v. Croatia (2007) (excerpts)

European Court of Human Rights - case of Biondić v. Croatia (2007) (excerpts)

(...)

 

27. The Court notes also that the Supreme Court found the applicant's appeal on points of law concerning her counter-claim inadmissible ratione valoris and thus declined its function of ensuring that the lower courts' interpretation of the relevant substantive and procedural law be in line with its case-law. However, despite the fact that the domestic courts with supervisory power, namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, allowed that decision to exist, the Court notes that it is obvious that the interpretation endorsed by the Municipal Court and the County Court in the applicant's case was in contravention to the Supreme Court's practice (see § 15 above).


28. The position of the Supreme Court as to the extent of the binding effect of decisions adopted in inheritance proceedings clearly shows that the substance of the applicant's counter-claim should have been examined by the lower courts. Since that was not the case, the Court has no choice other than to conclude that the applicant did not have the right of access to the extent required under the relevant domestic law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in analogous situations.