FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 24927/02
by Dara and Dušan SVILOKOS
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 May 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Dara Svilokos and Mr Dušan Svilokos, are Croatian citizens, who were born in 1939 and 1933 respectively and live in Sisak, Croatia. They are represented before the Court by Mr Zorko Kostanjšek, a lawyer practising in Sisak.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 July 1992 the applicants’ house in Sisak, Croatia, was partly destroyed by a mine laid by unknown perpetrators.
The responsibility for damages resulting from terrorist acts was at that time regulated by Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima ) providing that the responsibility lay with the authority whose officers were under duty to prevent such damages.
On 3 September 1992 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku), seeking compensation from the Republic of Croatia for their destroyed property. They based their claim on Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
On 20 May 1993 the court gave judgment in favour of the applicants.
On 23 June 1993 the Republic of Croatia appealed against the judgment.
On 29 September 1993 the Sisak County Court ( Županijski sud u Sisku) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial. The court considered that damage resulting from terrorist acts had not been established.
On 17 January 1996 the Croatian Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts could not be sought.
On 29 February 1996 the Sisak Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
On 14 July 2003 the Croatian Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette, no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act reads as follows:
Section 180(1)
“Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another’s property, when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations, lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty, according to the laws in force, to prevent such loss.”
The relevant parts of the Act Amending the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no. 7/1996) read as follows:
Section 1
“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”
Section 2
“Proceedings for damages instituted under section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act shall be stayed.
The proceedings referred to in sub-section 1 of this section shall be continued after the enactment of special legislation governing responsibility for damage resulting from terrorist acts.”
The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act provides:
Section 212
“Proceedings shall be stayed:
...
(6) where another statute so prescribes.”
The Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations provides, inter alia, that the Republic of Croatia is to compensate damages resulting in bodily injuries, impairment of health or death. All material damages can be sought pursuant to the Reconstruction Act.
The relevant parts of the Reconstruction Act (Zakon o obnovi, Official Gazette nos. 24/1996, 54/1996, 87/1996 and 57/2000) provide, inter alia, that the means for reconstruction are to be granted to persons whose property was destroyed in the war. The request is to be submitted to the Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction (Ministarstvo za javne radove, obnovu i graditeljstvo).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the enactment of the 1996 legislation violated their right of access to a court.
2. The applicants also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was violated.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that the 1996 legislation prevented the domestic courts from proceeding with their claim for damages and thus violated their right of access to a court. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicants also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was violated without further substantiating their complaint in this respect.
The Court notes that the events complained of took place in July 1992, while the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaint that they have been deprived of their right of access to a court;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy