FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12876/02
by Dragan IVANIĆ
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 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dragan Ivanić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Čepin, Croatia.
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.
In August 1991 the applicant's house in Vukovar was damaged by unknown perpetrators.
On 31 August 1995 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
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 Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 7 February 1997.
On 17 December 2002 the Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction (Ministarstvo za javne radove, obnovu i graditeljstvo) decided to rebuild the applicant's house pursuant to his request.
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 Zagreb Municipal 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 guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. He also invoked Article 17 of the Convention in relation to the enactment of the same Act.
He further complained under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the destruction of his house which took place in August 1991.
THE LAW
On 10 February 2004 and on 1 March 2004 the applicant and the Government, respectively, submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case whereby the Government would pay the amount of 4,500 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