FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43369/02
by TRGOVAČKO DRUŠTVO ALFER S.P.O.
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 October 2002,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Trgovačko Društvo Alfer s.p.o., is a Croatian company from Karlovac. It was represented before the Court by Mr M. Mihočević, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Štefica Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
After the applicant company’s premises in Karlovac were destroyed in 1991 by an unknown perpetrator, in 1994 it brought a civil action in the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.
By virtue of the 1996 amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed. In June 2002 the applicant company filed a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings and about its lack of access to a court and in July 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) granted the claim and awarded the applicant company a sum of Croatian kunas (HRK) 4,400.
Meanwhile, on 14 July 2003 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) came into force and pursuant to it proceeidngs before the Karlovac Municipal Court were resumed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant company complained that Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 legislation had deprived it of its right of access to a court and its right to an effective remedy contrary to Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court recalls that notice of the application was given to the Government on 29 January 2004. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 3 May 2004, contending, inter alia, that the applicant company had ceased to exist and also that it had failed to furnish a power of attorney for its representative before the Court. The applicant company has failed to submit a letter of attorney for Mr Mihočević and to respond to the communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 12 January 2007 warning the applicant company of the possibility that its case might be struck out of the Court’s list if it failed to respond.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant company does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the further examination of this case. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued and the application struck out of the list of cases.
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