FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 9573/02
by Kruno IVANOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 November 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kruno Ivanović, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1943 and lives in Pitomača, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Ms Tatajana Burjačenko Grubiša, a lawyer practising inZagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 19 July 1992 the applicant’s house in Pitomača was mined by unknown perpetrators.
It appears that the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici), seeking compensation from the Republic of Croatia.
On 16 January 1996 the court gave a judgment awarding the applicant’s claim.
On 17 January 1996 the Croatian Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts could not be sought. So far the Croatian authorities have not enacted any new legislation regulating the matter.
After that the Republic of Croatia appealed against the first instance judgment.
On 11 April 1996 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) as the appellate court stayed the proceedings.
The applicant then filed a request for revision arguing that the decision to stay the proceedings was unfounded because his claim for compensation was awarded by the first instance court before the enactment of the new legislation.
On 26 January 2000 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) rejected the request for revision as inadmissible.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) reads as follows:
Section 180(1)
“Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another’s property, when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations, lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty, according to the laws in force, to prevent such loss.”
The relevant parts of the Act Amending the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no. 7/1996) read as follows:
Section 1
“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”
Section 2
“Proceedings for damages instituted under section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act shall be stayed.
The proceedings referred to in sub-section 1 of this section shall be continued after the enactment of special legislation governing responsibility for damage resulting from terrorist acts.”
The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act provides:
Section 212
“Proceedings shall be stayed:
...
(6) where another statute so prescribes.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant maintains that Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 legislation interferes with his right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. He further complains that his inability to obtain compensation violates his right to property.
THE LAW
1. The applicant firstly complains that he is deprived of his right of access to court because the changes of the Civil Obligations Act from 1996 prevented him from having his claim for compensation decided by the domestic courts. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that 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.
2. The applicant also complains that he has been deprived of his right to property because he is not able to obtain any compensation for his destroyed property, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
The Court reiterates that in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with regard to that Party (see, for example, X. v. Portugal, application no. 9453/81, Commission decision of 13 December 1982, Decisions and Reports (DR) 31 pp. 204, 208 and Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000).
The Court recalls that Croatia recognised the competence of the Court to receive applications “from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation by Croatia of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 5 November 1997.” Accordingly, the Court is not competent to examine the present application in so far as it refers to facts occurring before the date of the ratification of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant’s property was destroyed in 1992, before Croatia ratified the Convention. The Court considers that this was an instantaneous act of deprivation of property which did not create any continuous situation.
The Court notes further that the legislative interference also took place before the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning his right of access to court;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos ROZAKIS
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy