6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Novi Sad, Serbia. 7.  On 8 March 1998 D.P.V. brought a civil action against M.V. (the applicant’s legal predecessor) in the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Biogradu na moru) seeking (a) to be declared joint owner of a house and surrounding land on Pašman, an island off the coast of Croatia, and (b) payment of 30,000 German marks (DEM). 8.  On 18 December 1998 the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court ordered an onsite inspection of the property, including an expert valuation. It took place on 29 December 1998. 9.  The expert submitted his opinion to the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court on 19 January 1999, assessing the value of the property at 208,575.66 Croatian kunas (HRK). 10.  On 16 September 1999 the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff D.P.V., who was declared owner of a one half share of the property. M.V. was ordered to pay her DEM 30,000. 11.  M.V. lodged an appeal but it was dismissed by the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) on 18 July 2001. 12.  On 20 December 2001 M.V. simultaneously lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the appeal judgment. In using both of these remedies she challenged the judgments of the lower courts, arguing that they had failed to address all of her allegations. 13.  On 22 March 2002 the Constitutional Court sent a letter to M.V., informing her that, while her appeal on points of law was pending, it would be unable to deal with her constitutional complaint, and that the proceedings in that regard would have to be terminated unless otherwise requested after the decision of the Supreme Court. 14.  In examining the admissibility ratione valoris of the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the value of the half share of the property had not been assessed. On 16 November 2004 the Supreme Court therefore requested the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court to determine the value of the subject matter of the dispute (vrijednost predmeta spora), in accordance with section 40(4) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Act. 15.  On 15 February 2005 M.V. died and bequeathed all her property to the applicant, who took over the proceedings thereafter. 16.  On 27 July 2005 the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court held a hearing and heard representatives of both parties. The plaintiff’s representative relied on his alleged statutory prerogative to set the value of the dispute at HRK 10,000, while the applicant’s representative relied on the expert valuation (see paragraph 9 above) and requested that the value of the dispute be set at at least HRK 101,000. The relevant part of the transcript of that hearing reads as follows:
“The plaintiff’s representative maintains that the value of the dispute in this case is HRK 10,000 in accordance with section 26 of the Court Fees Act ... and that this is the value the plaintiff has set.
The defendant’s representative objects to such an interpretation of the value of the dispute, arguing that [it] could only have been established after the expert valuation had been obtained from the court expert, who assessed the value of the property at HRK 200,000, which the Municipal Court is bound to accept, and that in any event the value of the dispute exceeds HRK 101,000.” 17.  On the same day the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court issued a decision whereby it set the value of the ownership claim to HRK 10,000. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The value of the dispute in the civil action... between the plaintiff D.P.V... and the defendant M.V... for determination (radi utvrđenja) ... is set at HRK 10,000.
Reasoning
Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court and in accordance with section 40(4) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Act, after a hearing held on 27 July 2005, in which the parties argued over the value of the dispute in the civil action between the plaintiff D.P.V. and the defendant M.V., for determination of ownership of the property, the value of the dispute has been set as stated in the operative part of this decision, relying on section 26 of the Court Fees Act.” 18.  On 28 February 2006 the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the first-instance and appellate courts by dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for DEM 30,000. It however declared the appeal on points of law concerning D.P.V.’s ownership claim inadmissible ratione valoris, finding that the value of the dispute was below the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The plaintiff failed to specify the value of the dispute in her claim...The first-instance court set the value of the dispute... at HRK 10,000, in accordance with section 40(4) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Act.
... [The] appeal on points of law is inadmissible...as the value of the dispute... does not exceed the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000...” 19.  The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing, inter alia, that the value of the dispute had been set disproportionately low when compared with the market valuation of the property as established by an independent expert. She relied on the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing equality before the law and equality before the courts. 20.  On 26 November 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, endorsing the view of the Supreme Court. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 16 December 2008.