4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Velika Gorica. 5.  The applicant's husband, A.B., died on 13 October 1997. In the inheritance proceedings after her husband's death the applicant and their daughter were declared the only heirs, and A.B.'s estate was distributed between them in equal parts by a decision of the Velika Gorica Municipal Court of 10 November 1997. 6.  However, on 29 November 1997 K.D. brought a civil action in the Velika Gorica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici) against the applicant and her daughter, claiming that he was A.B.'s illegitimate son and seeking one third of A.B.'s estate. 7.  On 27 February 1998 the applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking firstly that K.D. be declared unsuitable to inherit and secondly that her personal property acquired during her marriage to A.B. be excluded from their joint matrimonial property and exempted from A.B.'s estate. In respect of the latter, she argued that, since she herself and her daughter were the only heirs known to her and were also living together, she had not sought to have her personal property acquired during her marriage to A.B. excluded from their joint property and exempted from A.B.'s estate in the course of the inheritance proceedings because the only parties to those proceedings had been herself and her daughter, with whom she had been on good terms and who was also the applicant's only heir. Therefore, she had seen no reason to divide her property from her daughter's, bearing in mind that the establishing of her separate property might be a lengthy and costly undertaking. 8.  At a hearing held on 16 June 1998 the applicant made her statement, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“... the defendant states that in 1968 a woman with a small child attacked her in the street and started to insult her. When she came home she asked her husband about the woman and he told her that it had been his past and that she had nothing to do with it ... he also told her that a paternity claim had been lodged against him in a court of law, but that he had not been the father of the child ...
The defendant states that she had no knowledge of the Zagreb County Court judgment no. P2-2954/65 [establishing her husband's paternity of the plaintiff] ... and that during his illness her husband had never even hinted that he had had any other child other than their daughter Jadranka ...” 9.  In its judgment of 25 May 1999 the Velika Gorica Municipal Court upheld K.D.'s claim and declared the applicant's counterclaim inadmissible. It can be seen from the judgment that no arguments concerning the merits of the applicant's counterclaim had been heard before the court. The court found that the applicant had been prevented from seeking the exemption of her personal property from the inheritance because she had failed to file an objection to that effect in the course of the inheritance proceedings. The relevant parts of the first-instance judgment read as follows:
“... the [applicant's] counterclaim ... in the part seeking that her property rights be established over the estate which was subject to the inheritance proceedings in respect of the late Ante Biondić, is not admissible.
It is undisputed between the parties that the inheritance proceedings were conducted in respect of the late Ante Biondić and that a decision on inheritance no. O-522/97, identifying the inheritance and the heirs of the late Ante Biondić, was adopted and became final on 10 November 1999.
... the estate of the late Ante Biondić was identified by the final and binding decision on inheritance no. O-522/97 of 10 November 1997 and the counter-claimant, as a party to those inheritance proceedings, is bound by that decision, meaning that all that has been established in that decision is for her res judicata (section 231 of the Inheritance Act).
That is to say that the counter-claimant, as she herself acknowledged, did not lodge such a request in the inheritance proceedings, although she was a party to those proceedings and was in a position to do so. Since she failed to seek [that her individual property be exempted] she can no longer dispute the presumption of the veracity of the content of that decision, in other words, she cannot seek in the civil proceedings to alter the final decision [adopted in the inheritance proceedings].
Under section 333(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a court shall of its own motion monitor during the entire civil proceedings if the case at issue has been finally decided and if it finds that the civil proceedings were instituted in connection with a claim that has already been finally decided, it shall declare such a claim inadmissible.
Since it is has been clearly established in the decision on inheritance no. O-522/97 of 10 November 1997 that the property issues concerning the assets which were the subject of the inheritance proceedings have been finally decided, the counterclaim in this part has to be declared inadmissible pursuant to section 333(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.” 10.  The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). She contested the first-instance judgment both in respect of the part upholding K.D.'s claim and the part declaring her counterclaim inadmissible. On 25 September 2001 the appellate court, without holding a hearing, upheld the first-instance judgment in the part concerning K.D.'s claim and set aside the part declaring the applicant's counterclaim inadmissible so as to dismiss it as being unfounded. However, the arguments of the appellate court concerning the reasons for dismissal of the applicant's counterclaim were the same as those of the Municipal Court. The relevant parts of the appellate judgment read as follows:
“... the first-instance court's finding that the counter-claimant cannot succeed with her counterclaim seeking [the court] to establish her co-ownership of one half of the real estate and movables which represent the estate of the late Ante Biondić, because [the property comprising] his estate was identified in the final decision on inheritance, including its scope, which binds the counter-claimant Ivanka Biondić as a party to the inheritance proceedings within the meaning of section 231 of the Inheritance Act, is correct.
The conclusion in the impugned judgment that counter-claimant Ivanka Biondić now cannot succeed with her claim that [the courts] in these civil proceedings find that she, as the spouse of the late Ante Biondić, is entitled to one half of his estate on the basis that the estate was acquired during their marriage since she failed to lodge such a claim in the inheritance proceedings is correct.
Section 231 of the Inheritance Act provides that a final decision on inheritance is binding on the parties to the inheritance proceedings. [This rule] applies to the counter-claimant if [the court ruling in the inheritance proceedings] did not establish her right to present her claim in the civil proceedings.
Therefore, as the decision on inheritance has become final, the counter-claimant Ivanka Biondić is not entitled to lodge a civil claim seeking [the protection of] her property rights over a part of the inheritance because she failed to seek exemption of that part of the inheritance [in the inheritance proceedings] under section 37 of the Inheritance Act. Therefore, her right to have her claim examined in these civil proceedings cannot be recognised (section 224 of the Inheritance Act).
...
However, the fact that the subject of the counterclaim in these civil proceedings is the estate in respect of which a final decision on inheritance, binding on the counter-plaintiff, has already been given, cannot result in finding the counterclaim inadmissible. Instead, it shall be dismissed on the merits ...” 11.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) which was dismissed in respect of the part concerning K.D.'s claim and declared inadmissible ratione valoris in the part concerning the applicant's counterclaim. 12.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint arguing, inter alia, that by dismissing her counterclaim the lower courts had violated her right of equality before the law, her right to a fair trial by an independent tribunal, her right to an appeal and to an effective remedy, her right to respect for her private and family life and her property rights. On 10 March 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the complaint as being unfounded.