FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 53227/99
by Vinko MAJSTOROVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,[Note1]
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 April 1997 and registered on 7 December 1999,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1940 and living in Zagreb (Croatia).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 December 1992 the applicant lent 13,568,000 Croatian Kunas to “V. M. Market”, a company in Zagreb, for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 20 %.
As the above-said company failed to comply with its obligations under the contract, on 10 October 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Zagreb Municipal Court seeking repayment of the loan.
The court has not yet reached any decision.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 1, 6, 13, 15, 17, 25, 32, 34 38 and 41 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Articles 1, 15, 17, 25, 32, 34, 38 and 41 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant has failed to substantiate those complaints in any respect.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 .
2.The applicant further complains that the length of the proceedings that began on 10 October 1993 and that are still pending before the first instance court has been excessive.
The applicant invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...)”
The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention, that he has no remedy to accelerate the proceedings.
The Court considers, having regard to all the information in its possession, that it cannot determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings before the first instance court, and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints that the length of the proceedings before the first instance court exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he has in this respect been deprived of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy