FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 423/05
by Josip ANDRAŠIĆ and Others
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are 27 Croatian nationals (see Appendix) and were all represented before the Court by Mrs D. Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Nova Gradiška. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were employed by the company K. (“the company”), which went bankrupt in 1995. At that time, all enforcement proceedings, which the company had against third parties, were stayed due to the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings.
On 11 October 1999 the Slavonski Brod Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Slavonskom Brodu) ceded the claims from 71 stayed enforcement proceedings of the company towards third persons to the applicants with a view to compensating them for their salaries. Apparently, in all 71 enforcement proceedings the competent court had already issued enforcement orders.
During 2003, the applicants informed the Nova Gradiška Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Novoj Gradiški) in each of the 71 enforcement proceedings that they had become the new creditors and urged the court to continue with the enforcement.
Sometime in 2004 the applicants filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the enforcement proceedings. However, on 14 October 2004 the Constitutional Court declared their complaint inadmissible. It found that, since the competent court had issued enforcement orders in the proceedings complained of, section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act did no longer apply to these cases.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings.
THE LAW
By letter of 17 August 2007 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicants jointly 28,000 euros in full and final settlement of their claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included.
By letter of 21 August the applicants informed the Court that they had accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement whereby the applicants waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy