FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29048/03
by Vukašin SLADIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 2003,
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 Vukašin Sladić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Hrvatska Kostajnica. He was represented before the Court by Mrs T. Burjačenko Grubiša, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs T. Grubiša.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant held a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Zagreb, along with his ex-wife, S.S.
In 1992 the provider of the flat brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the applicant and S.S., seeking termination of their tenancy. The plaintiff claimed that the respondents had not used the flat for a period longer than six months, without a justified reason.
Since at the time when the action was lodged the applicant’s residence appears to have been unknown, he was appointed a guardian ad litem (skrbnik za poseban slučaj).
During the proceedings, the court heard S.S. and several witnesses. S.S. stated that she divorced the applicant in 1989 and that she had not lived in the flat ever since. She also stated not to know when the applicant left the flat himself and informed the court that she and the applicant had parallel pending proceedings as to who was the holder of the tenancy of the flat at issue.
The applicant’s guardian objected to the plaintiff’s claim in general terms as he was unable to give any specific facts or arguments.
On 7 June 1993 the Zagreb Municipal Court accepted the plaintiff’s action and terminated the tenancy, finding that both S.S. and the applicant had not used the flat for over six months, but had sublet it.
S.S. appealed against that judgment. On 17 May 1994 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.
Following an appeal on points of law (revizija) lodged by S.S., on 5 September 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the lower instances’ judgments.
On 18 January 2002 the applicant found out about the proceedings which had been conducted in his absence and he filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the Supreme Court’s judgment. The applicant claimed that the Municipal Court knew and could have known his address since it was indicated in the parallel proceedings pending between him and S.S. in the same court, which served as one of the evidence in the proceedings at issue. The applicant had thus unlawfully been prevented from participating in the proceedings and this fact violated the equality of arms principle as well as his right to an appeal and to a fair trial.
On 18 December 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded, concluding that the applicant had been lawfully represented by a guardian ad litem and that this fact was not in dispute in the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings, in particular about the fact that he had not participated in them. The applicant submitted that the first-instance court must have been aware of his address since it was mentioned in its judgment, but nevertheless appointed him a guardian, thereby placing the applicant at significant disadvantage in the proceedings and violating the equality of arms principle. Furthermore, the applicant, in substance, claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his Serbian origin.
THE LAW
On 6 June 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant accepted a proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 8 June 2007 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 10,000 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). 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