FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 45435/99
by UDRUGA FINANCIJSKIH ULAGAČA
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 August 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,[Note1]
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 December 1996 and registered on 15 January 1999,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is an association, established in 1993, with its headquarters in Zagreb, while the second to seventh applicants are Croatian citizens, born in 1929, 1970, 1934, 1929, 1934 and 1936, respectively, and living in Zagreb (Croatia). The fourth and fifth applicants are represented by the third applicant, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1.The first applicant is an association of persons who invested their money into the so called “financial engineering” and is complaining on behalf of its members.
2.During 1992 the second to seventh applicants lent various sums of money to a number of companies that were supposed to pay the money back within periods ranging from 2 to 12 months and at interest rates ranging from 10 % to 30 % per month (so called “financial engineering”).
As those companies failed to fulfil their obligations under such agreements, the second to seventh applicants instituted several different proceedings with the Zagreb Municipal Court.
a.The second applicant, Zvonimir Radoš, instituted the following proceedings:
- on 18 October 1993 against Branka Jandrašek for 10.000 German Marks (DEM);
- on 18 October 1993 against Božidar Bednjanec for 20.000 DEM.
Both proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
b.The third applicant, Goran Leinert, on 6 May 1993 instituted proceedings against Đurđa Maček for 28.000 DEM. The proceedings are still pending.
c.The fourth applicant, Dmitar Malešević, instituted the following proceedings:
- on 1 June 1993 against Boris Jelčić and “V. M. - Market” for 16.500 DEM. The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance;
- on 15 November 1994 against Željko Mesec and “Z.I.P.” d.o.o. for 20.000 Swiss Francs (CHF). On 13 February 1995 the Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, but the applicant failed to seek judicial enforcement of that decision;
- on 21 December 1994 against “M.J.B.” d.o.o. and Branka Jandrašek for 2.300 DEM. On 28 November 1995 the Municipal Court ruled in the applicant’s favour, but the applicant failed to seek judicial enforcement of that decision;
- on 21 December 1994 against “F.I.S.” d.o.o. and Jasminka Suhić for 15.000 CHF. The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
d.The fifth applicant, Branko Jugović, instituted the following proceedings:
- on 5 October 1995 against Ivica Androić and “T.I.A.” d.o.o. for 5.000 DEM; Branka Jandrašek and “M.J.B.” d.o.o. for 5.000 DEM; Božidar Bednjanec and “M.B.B.” d.o.o. for 6.000 DEM and Tatjana Koričanac and “T.K.M.” d.o.o. for 7.000 Dem. The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
e.The sixth applicant, Stjepan Živković, instituted the following proceedings:
- on 24 January 1994 against Snježana Drusany and “Enigma” d.o.o. for 13.540 DEM;
- on 27 January 1994 against Božidar Bednjanec for 11.052 DEM;
- on 5 July 1994 against Branka Jandrašek and “M.J.B.” d.o.o. for 10.000 DEM, 980.000 Croatian Dinars and 18.350 CHF; and
- on 5 July 1994 against Đurđa Maček and “F.I.M.” for 23.800 DEM.
The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
f. The seventh applicant, Gojko Mikecin, instituted the following proceedings:
- on 5 May 1993 against Snježana Drusany and “Enigma” d.o.o. for 14.400 DEM;
- on 16 June 1993 against Branka Jandrašek and “T.I.A.” d.o.o. for 15.500 DEM.
The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Articles 1, 4, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28, 32 and 50 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 1.
They further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the failure of the domestic courts to ensure the repayments of the loans violated their right to property.
They also complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic court have been excessive.
Finally, they complain that, under domestic law, they have no remedy at their disposal for speeding up those proceedings.
THE LAW
1.As to the complaints raised by the first applicant, an association of persons who invested their money into the so called “financial engineering”, the Court considers that the association cannot be regarded as a victim of a violation of the Convention. It is itself not affected by the alleged inability of domestic bodies to ensure the repayments of the loans or the failure of domestic courts to examine the other applicants’ claims within a reasonable time, but only its members. It follows that, as regards the alleged violation of various provisions of the Convention, the applicant association cannot claim to be a victim, as such.
The Court further notes that it cannot be considered that the application really emanates from the members of the association as the part of the application submitted by the first applicant does not mention any specific case of one or more of its members alleged to be subjected to a measure constituting an infringement with their rights under the Convention. (see European Commission of Human Rights, No. 9939/82, Dec. 4. 7. 83., D.R. 34, pp. 213, 216,217; No.9900/82, Dec. 4. 5. 83., D.R. 32, pp. 261, 264,265).
Accordingly, that part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
2.The Court notes that the applicants failed to substantiate their claims under Articles 1, 4, 15, 17, 25, 26, 28, 32 and 50 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 5 of Protocol No. 1. Therefore, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
3.The Court further observes that part of the fourth applicant’s complaints relates to the proceedings that terminated by the Municipal Court’s decisions, in his favour, of 13 February 1995 and 28 November 1995, respectively, and that he failed to seek judicial enforcement of those decisions. As the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997, this part of his application is incompatible ratione temporis within the provisions of the Convention.
4.The Court further notes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are premature as the proceedings concerning the repayments of their loans are still pending before the domestic court. Therefore, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
5.As to the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings instituted by the second to seventh applicants before the Zagreb Municipal Court, and that are still pending before the same court, as well as the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of those complaints. It is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the second to seventh applicants’ complaints that the length of the proceedings still pending before the court of first instance exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that they have in this respect been deprived of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy