FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 11814/02
by Ljuban DRAGIČEVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 December 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrE. Levits,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 January 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ljuban Dragičević, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1938 and lives in Crikvenica, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Ms Miroslava Manojlović Motušić, a lawyer practising in Zadar, Croatia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 July 1992 the applicant’s house in Nin, Croatia was mined by unknown perpetrators.
On 18 May 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking compensation for his destroyed property form 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 17 December 1998 the Zadar 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“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”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 and/or his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
2. He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 claiming that the act of destruction of his house deprived him of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
3. He finally complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his ethnic origin.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that he is deprived of his right of access to court and/or his right to an effective remedy because the changes of the Civil Obligations Act from 1996 prevented him from having his claim for compensation decided by the domestic courts. He relies on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 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...”
“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 also complains that he has been deprived of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions because his house was mined. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court notes that the events complained of took place on 6 July 1992 while the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997.
It follows that this complaint 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. Finally the applicant complains that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his ethnic origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
The Court recalls that according to its established case-law regarding the scope of the guarantee provided under Article 14, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if “it has no objective and reasonable justification”, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised” (see, for example, the Gaygusuz v. Austria judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1142, § 42).
The Court notes that in the present case the changes in legislation equally apply to all persons in the applicant’s position.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints that he has been deprived of 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