FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27160/02
by Vinko BOŽOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner, judges
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the respondent Government's letter dated 1 March 2004, and the applicant's representative letter dated 26 January 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vinko Božović, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1957 and lives in Zagreb, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Ms L. Lukina Karajković.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 February 1995 the applicant filed a civil claim with the Zagreb Municipal Court against the Republic of Croatia, seeking compensation for damage caused to his vehicle by M.K., a member of the Croatian Army.
On 6 November 1999 the Croatian Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act, which provided that all proceedings against the Republic of Croatia concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army and police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
On 13 January 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
On 16 July 2003 Parliament enacted the Act on the Liability of the Republic of Croatia for Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police When Acting in Their Official Capacity During the Homeland War (Official Gazette No. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
COMPLAINT
The applicant maintained that the Parliament's enactment of the 1999 legislation interfered with his right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter of 26 January 2004 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 1 March 2004 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant EUR 6,000 in full and final settlement of the applicant's claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy