FIRST SECTION
Application no. 69697/11
Miloš CRNKOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 3 November 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Miloš Crnković, is a Croatian national of Serbian ethnic origin, who was born in 1946 and lives in Sisak. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Šušak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Background to the case
The applicant alleges that on 27 January 1992 the Croatian authorities arrested him and took him to the Kerestinec military barracks, which served as prison, where he was ill-treated. On 27 March 1992 he was exchanged for Croatian soldiers and taken to Serbia.
Investigation
On an unspecified date in 2008 an investigation was opened against S.K., D.P. V.I., Ž.Ž. and G.Š. on charges of war crimes against the prisoners of war committed in the Kerestinec military barracks and on 21 November 2011 the Zagreb county State Attorney’s Office lodged an indictment against the same persons with the Zagreb County Court on the same charges. The proceedings are currently pending.
Civil proceedings
On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant brought a civil action in the Sisak Municipal Court against the State, seeking compensation in respect of the above-described ill-treatment. The claim was dismissed on 16 November 2006 the ground that it had become time-barred. This judgment was upheld by the Sisak County Court on 29 November 2007 and the Supreme Court on 17 June 2009.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 20 April 2011.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention that the competent State authorities have failed to meet their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with his allegations of ill-treatment in the “Kerestinec camp”.
He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the application of laws in the civil proceedings he instituted against the State.
Lastly, he complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy at his disposal as regards his Convention complaints.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the domestic authorities complied with their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV)?
2. Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to investigate whether there was any motive behind the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment that might be related to his Serbian origin (see, mutatis mutandis, Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007‑VI)?
3. Has the applicant at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to submit two copies of all case files and other documents concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy