FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7136/08
by Milica SINOBAD and Kaljinka SINOBAD
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 December 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Milica Sinobad and Ms Kaljinka Sinobad, are Croatian nationals who live in Knin. They were represented before the Court by Mr I. Škarpa, a lawyer practising in Split. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are co-owners of a house in Knin, measuring ninety square metres. During the war in Croatia they left Knin and in October 1996 the competent authorities authorised a certain I.V. to temporarily occupy the applicants’ house.
On 9 September 1998 the applicants applied for the repossession of their house to the Knin Housing Commission (Stambne komisija Grada Knina). On 3 June 1999 this Commission set aside the decision from October 1996 and decided that the house be returned to the applicants. The house was returned to the applicants on 17 December 2002.
On 23 April 2003 the applicants brought a civil action in the Knin Municipal Court against the State seeking compensation for the inability to use their property in the period from 9 September 1998 to 17 December 2002. On 27 September 2004 the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicants’ claim for the period between 1 November 2002 and 17 December 2002. The judgment was upheld by the Šibenik County Court (Općinski sud u Šibeniku) on 6 June 2005.
The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 29 November 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of the civil proceedings at issue.
They further complained that their property rights had been violated because the national courts had awarded them lower than the market-value compensation for the occupation of their house in the period from 1 November to 17 December 2002 and no compensation at all for the period from 9 September 1998 until 1 November 2002.
THE LAW
On 7 April 2009the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants’ representative:
“I note that the Government of Croatia are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 7,400 euros to Ms Milica Sinobad and Ms Kaljinka Sinobad jointly with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Having consulted my clients, I would inform you that they accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. They declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 28 April 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Croatia offer to pay ex gratia 7,400 euros to Ms Milica Sinobad and Ms Kaljinka Sinobad jointly with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
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 and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case 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