FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 129/05
by Igor KATIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Igor Katić, is a Croatian national of Serbian origin who was born in 1929 and lives in Zadar. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Civil proceedings
On 11 November 1998 the applicant brought a civil action against the Town of Benkovac, restaurant B. and a certain B.E. in the Benkovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Benkovcu) seeking declaration of nullity of a lease contract by which the first respondent had leased a warehouse and a garage in Benkovac to the third respondent. The applicant also sought the repossession of that property claiming that he was its owner.
On 7 November 2003 the Municipal Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible in respect of the second respondent. It also decided to stay the proceedings in respect of the remaining two respondents, pending the outcome of the concurrent administrative proceedings the applicant had instituted in 1997 in order to obtain restitution of the disputed property that had been nationalised during the Communist regime. The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 28 April 2005 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, on 29 November 2005 the Benkovac Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s action. The applicant again appealed. It appears that the case is currently again pending before the Zadar County Court.
2. The proceedings before the Constitutional Court
On 9 June 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the above proceedings. On 17 November 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 5,200 Croatian kunas in compensation and ordered the Benkovac Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than six months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published on 2 January 2006.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the above civil proceedings. In particular, he complained that the amount of compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court for the breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been too low and that the impugned proceedings were still pending.
2. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14 thereof, that because of the excessive length of the proceedings he had been unable to realise his property rights, which in his opinion had been protracted due to his Serbian origin.
THE LAW
By letter of 14 December 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he accepted a proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 3 January 2008 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 2,400 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy