FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26120/04
by Nenad PETKOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 June 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 Nenad Petković, is a Croatian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mrs M. Savić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1993 the applicant filed a civil action against his employer H.Ž. (“the employer”). He requested the court to quash the employer’s decision on his transfer to another post and sought compensation of salary.
On 15 March 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) ruled in the applicant’s favour. On appeal, on 25 February 1997 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, on 12 September 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court again ruled in the applicant’s favour. On appeal, on 15 March 2005 the Zagreb County Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
On 20 June 2005 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
Meanwhile, sometime in 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. However, on 13 February 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible, since the Municipal Court had already given its judgment in the case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. In substance, he also complains about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his length complaint.
THE LAW
On 19 December 2005 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the applicant waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
By letter of 13 January 2006 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 4,700 euros in full and final settlement of his claim under the Convention, 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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck 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