FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 17400/02
by Dragan ČAKALIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dragan Čakalić is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1954 and lives in Požega, Croatia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 March 1993 both the applicant’s house and business premises in Požega, Croatia, were destroyed by a mine laid by unknown perpetrators.
On 21 July 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Požega Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Požegi), seeking compensation from the Republic of Croatia for his destroyed property. He based his claim on Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima).
On 17 January 1996 the Croatian Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts could not be sought.
On 3 June 1997 the Požega Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
On 14 July 2003 the Croatian Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette of 23 July 2003, no. 117/2003).
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act reads as follows:
Section 180(1)
“Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another’s property, when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations, lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty, according to the laws in force, to prevent such loss.”
The relevant parts of the Act Amending the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no. 7/1996) read as follows:
Section 1
“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”
Section 2
“Proceedings for damages instituted under section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act shall be stayed.
The proceedings referred to in sub-section 1 of this section shall be continued after the enactment of special legislation governing responsibility for damage resulting from terrorist acts.”
The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act provides:
Section 212
“Proceedings shall be stayed:
...
(6) where another statute so prescribes.”
The Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations provides, inter alia, that the Republic of Croatia is to compensate damages resulting in bodily injuries, impairment of health or death. All material damages could be sought pursuant to the Reconstruction Act.
The relevant parts of the Reconstruction Act (Zakon o obnovi, Official Gazette nos. 24/1996, 54/1996, 87/1996 and 57/2000) provide, inter alia, that the means for reconstruction are to be granted to persons whose property was destroyed in the war. The request is to be submitted to the Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction (Ministarstvo za javne radove, obnovu i graditeljstvo).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant maintains that Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 legislation interferes with his right of access to court.
2. Without invoking any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complains that the destruction of his property violated his right to respect for his home.
3. The applicant also complains that his right to personal security was violated because the domestic authorities have not found perpetrators so far.
4. The applicant further complains that his right to work was violated for the reasons that he had worked in a coffee bar which was part of the house complex later destroyed.
THE LAW
1. The applicant firstly complains that he is deprived of his right of access to court because the 1996 changes of the Civil Obligations Act prevented him from having his claim for compensation decided by the domestic courts. This complaint falls within the ambit of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant also complains that the destruction of his property violated his right to respect for his home.
The Court notes that the events complained of took place in March 1993, while the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
3. The applicant further complains that his right to personal security was violated because the domestic authorities have not found perpetrators so far.
The Court notes that, in the light of the all material in its possession and, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
4. As to the applicant’s complaint in respect of his right to work, the Court notes that the right to work is not guaranteed by the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that he has been deprived of his right of access to court;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy