FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16344/03
by Momčilo TRIVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 March 2005 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 May 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Momčilo Trivić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Zagreb. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 April 1990 the applicant had a traffic accident as a consequence of which he sustained severe injuries resulting in a 40% disability.
On 18 July 1991 the applicant filed a civil action against the insurance company C.O. with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking pecuniary damages.
On 4 November 1992 the Municipal Court gave judgment by which it accepted the applicant's claim. On appeal, on 21 September 1993 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, on 4 May 1994 the Municipal Court gave judgment by which it again accepted the applicant's claim. On appeal, on 2 May 1995 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, on 18 March 2003 the Municipal Court gave judgment by which it accepted the applicant's claim. On 24 April 2003 the respondent appealed.
The case is currently pending before the Zagreb County Court.
Meanwhile, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 12 December 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint. It held that the protracted character of the proceedings had been attributable to the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. He further complained under Article 13 that he had not had an effective remedy for his Convention right to a trial within a reasonable time.
THE LAW
By his letter of 19 January 2005 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant accepted a proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 11 February 2005 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 4,500 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) 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 Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued and the case struck 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