FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 56773/00
by Ilija RAJČEVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 February 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,[Note1]
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 19 February 2000 and registered on 20 April 2000,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian citizen of Serbian origin, born in 1930 and living in Karlovac, Croatia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows,
On 18 September 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking damages for his destroyed property in the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu).
On 21 January 1999 the Karlovac Municipal Court terminated the proceedings stating that the applicant had withdrawn his suit.
The applicant appealed against that decision and on 17 March 1999 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the municipal court.
The case is still pending before the court of first instance.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the length of the civil proceedings has been excessive.
He further complains, under Article 14 of the Convention, that the domestic courts discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin.
He finally complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that his right to property has been violated insofar as the proceedings in question involve his request for damages for the destroyed property.
THE LAW
1. The applicant firstly alleges that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is violated due to the failure of the domestic courts to decide his case within a reasonable time.
The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...)”
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 applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convetnion that his right to property is violated as his property was destroyed, that he has been unable to obtain damages from the domestic authorities and that the domestic courts discriminate against him on the basis of his national origin.
The Court observes that the proceedings for damages for the destroyed property are still pending before the domestic courts.
It follows that this part of the application is premature and thus, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must, therefore, be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the civil proceedings;
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