SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45648/18
Dragica SUČEC and Others
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 January 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Pauliine Koskelo, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 September 2018,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were all represented, first by Mr L. Šušak, and then by Ms S. Čanković, lawyers practising in Zagreb.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicants are the wife and sons of the late Z. T. (see for the facts Trivkanović v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, § 5, 21 January 2021, regarding concurrent proceedings brought by Z. T.’s mother). On 3 February 2005 they brought a civil action for compensation against the State before the Sisak Municipal Court, claiming that Z. T. had been killed in 1991 by members of the Croatian police. The Sisak Municipal Court dismissed their action by a judgment of 4 December 2007, holding that the applicants’ claim had become time‑barred (see, mutatis mutandis, Trivkanović (no. 2), cited above, § 9). The first-instance judgment was upheld by the Sisak County Court on 19 August 2010, and thus became final.
5. On 1 August 2014 the applicants, relying on a judgment by the criminal courts of 9 December 2013 finding a member of the police guilty of war crimes against the civilian population (see Trivkanović (no. 2), cited above, §§ 10-15), applied for the reopening of the civil proceedings.
6. By a decision of 4 April 2017, the Sisak Municipal Court allowed the reopening and set aside its earlier final judgement (see paragraph 4 above). However, following an appeal lodged by the State, by a decision of 7 March 2018 the Sisak County Court reversed the first-instance decision and dismissed the applicants’ request for reopening, holding that they had not proven the causal link between the conduct of the person convicted in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 5 above) and the death of their husband and father.
7. The applicants then, on 30 March 2018, lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Sisak County Court.
8. On 19 September 2018 the applicants lodged the present application with the Court, complaining, inter alia, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the Sisak County Court’s decision to dismiss their request for reopening. They also raised complaints under Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
9. On 24 June 2021 the Government were given notice of the complaint, which the applicant had raised under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, concerning the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, whereas the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
10. In the meantime, on 10 March 2021 the Supreme Court had allowed the applicants’ appeal on points of law, quashed the impugned second‑instance decision and remitted the case. Thereupon, the Sisak County Court, by a decision of 23 August 2021, upheld the Sisak Municipal Court’s decision of 4 April 2017 allowing the applicants’ request for reopening.
11. In the reopened proceedings, the first- and the second-instance court ruled in the applicants’ favour by ordering the State to pay each applicant 330,000 Croatian kunas (HRK), that is, 43,800 euros (EUR) in compensation together with the accrued statutory default interest, as well as to pay them jointly HRK 193,905, that is, EUR 25,736 in costs.
THE LAW
12. The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “... at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved ...”. In order to ascertain whether that provision applies, the Court must examine, firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by an applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see, for example, Vadalà v. Italy (dec.), no. 14656/15, § 29, 7 November 2023, and the cases cited therein).
13. The Court further reiterates that for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention it is not required that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (ibid., § 36, and the cases cited therein).
14. The Court notes that in the present case the decision of the Sisak County Court complained of by the applicants to dismiss their request for reopening (see paragraphs 6 and 8 above) no longer obtains because the Supreme Court quashed it by its decision of 10 March 2021 (see paragraph 10 above). Thereby, the latter decision also redressed the effects of possible violations of the Convention on account of the impugned decision. Therefore, both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention have been met.
15. Consequently, the matter giving rise to the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be considered to have been “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
16. Lastly, the Court finds that no reason relating to the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols requires it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
17. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 February 2024.
Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Place of residence
1.
Dragica SUČEC
1970
Sisak
2.
Robert TRIVKANOVIĆ
1991
Sisak
3.
Aleksandar TRIVKANOVIĆ
1989
Sisak