FIRST SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 12873/02
by Pavo TOMAŠEVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2002,
Having regard to the decision of 19 December 2002 to declare certain complaints inadmissible and to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention (examination of the admissibility and merits together) in respect of the remaining complaints,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Pavo Tomašević, is a Croatian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb. He was represented before the Court by Ms Tatjana Burjačenko Grubiša, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Lidija Lukina-Karajković.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 April 1992 the applicant's weekend house in Orahovica, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
On 16 August 1994 he instituted civil proceedings before the Orahovica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Orahovici) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
On 16 November 1995 the Orahovica Municipal Court rejected his claim. The applicant appealed to the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru).
Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996, hereinafter “the 1996 Act”), the Bjelovar County Court stayed the proceedings on 18 July 1996.
Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings before the Bjelovar County Court resumed on an unspecified date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the enactment of the 1996 Act violated his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and his right to an effective remedy as provided in Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 1 March 2004 the Government and the applicant submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case whereby the Government would pay the amount of 6,000 euros to the applicant and he would withdraw the application waiving any further claims against Croatia in that respect.
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 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). Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention; and
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy