FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 15319/02
by Mile ČANAK
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mile Čanak, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1928 and lives in Bjelovar, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Ms Tatajana Burjačenko Grubiša, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In the night of 22 to 23 February 1992 the applicant’s house in Gornje Plavnice, Croatia was destroyed by a mine laid by unknown persons.
On 9 February 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.
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. So far the Croatian authorities have not enacted any new legislation regulating the matter.
On 20 March 1998 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) 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“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”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.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant maintains that Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 legislation interferes 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.
2. He further complains under Article 1 of protocol No. 1 that his right to property was violated.
THE LAW
1. The applicant firstly maintains that Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 legislation interferes 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 relevant parts of these Articles read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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 further complains that the destruction of his house violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession. He relies on Article 1 of protocol No. 1.
The Court notes that the events complained of took place prior to 5 November 1997 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia.
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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning his right of access to court and/or his right to an effective remedy;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos ROZAKIS
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy