Communicated on 16 December 2013
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 72152/13
Alojz CINDRIĆ and Katarina BESLIC
against Croatia
lodged on 5 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Mr Alojz Cindrić and Ms Katarina Bešlić, are Croatian nationals, who were born in 1973 and 1975 respectively and live in Petrinja. They are represented before the Court by Ms L. Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivanić Grad.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
In 1991 Serbian para-military forces gained control over a large part of the Croatian territory and established the so called “Serbian Independent Region Krajina” which included the town of Petrinja. The applicants’ parents, of Croatian ethnic origin, were killed as civilians in 1992 in Petrinja, allegedly by members of Serbian para-military forces.
2. Criminal investigation
An investigation was opened in January 1992 by the occupying forces and two persons, P.M. and S.M., members of the police of the so called “Serbian Independent Region Krajina” were identified as suspected perpetrators. However, no indictment was brought against them.
Croatian authorities regained control over Petrinja in August 1995. They opened investigation into the death of the applicants’ parents in 1996 and it appears that it is still pending.
3. Civil proceedings
On 16 March 2006 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Petrinja Municipal Court, seeking compensation in connection with the killing of their parents.
The claim was granted at the first instance on 9 March 2007. However, that judgment was reversed by the Sisak County Court on 3 December 2009 and also ordered the applicants to reimburse to the State the costs of the proceedings in the amount of Croatian kuna 52,500. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal judgment on 19 June 2012.
The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 9 May 2013.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that the investigation into the death of their parents has not satisfied the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention and that the national authorities have not investigated possible ethnic motives for the killing of the applicants’ parents as required under Article 14 of the Convention.
They further complain under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy as regards the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of their parents.
They also complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their right of access to a court was violated because of the excessive costs they were ordered to pay to the State in the civil proceedings whereby they sought damages in connection with the killing of their parents.
On the same ground they complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under was violated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms have been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
2. Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to investigate whether there was any motive behind killing of the applicants’ parents that might be related to their Croatian ethnic origin (see, mutatis mutandis, Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007‑VI)?
3. Do the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the civil proceedings complained of, on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered them to reimburse the State for the costs of those proceedings?
5. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, also on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered them to reimburse the State for the costs of those proceedings?
The Government are invited to submit copies of all case files and other documents concerning the killing of the applicants’ parents.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy