FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9256/04
by Nada SIMONOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 November 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, Mrs Nada Simonović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. She is represented before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company C. (“the company”) seeking compensation for damage incurred in a traffic accident. On 24 January 1994 the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded her damages.
The applicant requested enforcement of the above judgment. On 30 March 1994 the court issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju).
On 6 March 1995 the court dismissed the company’s appeal against the enforcement order.
On the company’s repeated appeal, on 7 June 1996 the case was remitted.
Following several hearings, on 27 March 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court accepted the company’s appeal in part and instructed it to institute civil proceedings in order to have the enforcement declared inadmissible.
The applicant appealed. No decision in this respect has been given so far.
Meanwhile, on 4 December 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 17 October 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible because the first instance court had meanwhile decided the case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective remedy at her disposal in respect of her length complaint.
THE LAW
On 14 July 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 12 September 2005 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 4,800 euros in full and final settlement of the applicant’s claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy