FIRST SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 13848/02
by Ivan and Milka DOBROTINIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2002,
Having regard to the decision of 13 February 2003 to declare certain complaints inadmissible and to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention (examination of the admissibility and merits together) in respect of the remaining complaints,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Ivan Dobrotinić and Ms Milka Dobrotinić, are Croatian nationals who live in Bjelovar, Croatia. They were represented before the Court by Ms Tatjana Burjačenko Grubiša, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Lidija Lukina-Karajković.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 January 1992 the applicants’ weekend house in Gornje Plavnice was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
On 26 May 1995 they instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.
Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996, hereinafter “the 1996 Act”), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 4 June 1996.
On 8 October 1997 the first applicant filed an application for reconstruction assistance pursuant to the Reconstruction Act 1996 (Zakon o obnovi, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 24/1996, 54/1996, 87/1996 and 57/2000). On 11 September 1998 the relevant authorities rejected that application on the ground that the damage was not a consequence of war activities but of a criminal offence.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained that the enactment of the 1996 Act violated their right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and their right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 1 March 2004 and on 27 April 2004 the Government and the applicants, respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case whereby the Government would pay the amount of 10,000 euros to the applicants and they would withdraw the application waiving any further claims against Croatia in that respect.
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 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). Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention; and
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy