FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 5705/02
by Ranko DRAGOVIĆ and Ružica DRAGOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 January 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, 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 applicants, Mr Ranko Dragović and Ms Ružica Dragović, are Croatian citizens, who were born in 1933 and 1936 respectively and live in Zadar. Croatia. They are represented before the Court by Mr Ivan Šalina, a lawyer practising in Zadar.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Proceedings concerning the second applicant’s vehicle
In September 1991 the second applicant’s vehicle was requisitioned by the Croatian Army.
In August 1992 the second applicant was informed that the vehicle had been all but destroyed.
On 18 August 1995 the second applicant filed a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages for her vehicle from the Republic of Croatia.
On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced a change of the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army or police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
On 23 November 2000 the court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.
2. Proceedings concerning the applicants’ house
The applicants claim that from autumn 1991 until the end of August 1992 members of the Croatian army occupied their house in Vodice, Croatia and caused severe damage to the house.
On 22 August 1995 the applicants filed a civil action in the Šibenik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Šibeniku) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.
On 20 May 1999 the court rejected the applicants’ claim.
The applicants appealed against the judgment.
On 10 December 1999 the Šibenik Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above-mentioned 1999 legislation.
B. Relevant domestic law
Section 184 (a) of the 1999 Act on Changes of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o dopunama Zakonu o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999) provides that all proceedings instituted against the Republic of Croatia for damages caused by the members of the Croatian army or police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War in Croatia from 7 August 1990 to 30 June 1996 are to be stayed.
The Act also imposes an obligation on the Government to submit to Parliament special legislation, regulating the responsibility for such damages, at the latest within six months from the entry into force of the Act.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants maintain that Parliament’s enactment of the 1999 legislation interferes with their right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. The applicants further complain that they were discriminated against on the basis of their ethnic origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
3. They also complain under Article 17 of the Convention that the domestic authorities abused their rights.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that they are deprived of their right of access to court because the changes of the Civil Obligations Act from 1999 prevented them from having their claim for compensation decided by the domestic courts. They rely on Article 6 § 1 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...”
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 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants further complain that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their 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, Gaygusuz v. Austria, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 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.
3. Finally, the applicants invoke Article 17 of the Convention claiming that the domestic authorities abused their rights.
The Court notes that in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 17 of the Convention.
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 applicants’ complaint that they have been deprived of their right of access to court;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NIELSENChristos ROZAKIS
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy