Information Note on the Court’s case-law 13
December 1999
Očič v. Croatia (dec.) - 46306/99
Decision 25.11.1999 [Section IV]
Article 34
Victim
Applicant unable to demonstrate that he would be personally affected by the enforcement of the law he challenged
In December 1996. the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, claiming that the Act on compensation for and restitution of assets taken under the Yugoslav communist regime violated the constitutional guarantees of right to property, social justice, rule of law and right to inheritance. He further claimed that the Act prevented him from protecting his own legal interests as well as the interests of clients whom he represented as a lawyer. Fourteen months later, he requested the speeding-up of the proceedings, but received no answer. In April 1999 the court quashed or changed several provisions of the impugned Act for not being in conformity with the Constitution.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant complained about an Act relating to the restitution of or compensation for property confiscated under the communist regime. This Act had not been enforced against him, and thus it had to be determined whether he could be considered a potential victim. However, even assuming that potential beneficiaries of the rights ensuing from the impugned Act may invoke Article 1 of Protocol Nº 1, the applicant has failed to show that he would have been personally affected by the enforcement of the Act. He maintained that his right to property as such was violated but did not adduce sufficient evidence that he was a potential holder of a right to restitution of or compensation for any property confiscated under the communist regime, or that property had been taken from him or his legal predecessors. An applicant who is unable to demonstrate that he or she is personally affected by the enforcement of a law which he or she criticises cannot claim to be the victim. Since there was no sufficiently direct connection between the applicant and the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of the Act in issue, he could not claim to be a victim in the meaning of Article 34: incompatible ratione personae.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy