FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32037/04
by Rade VJEŠTICA
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2004,
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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rade Vještica, is a Croatian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Knin. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Škarpa, a lawyer practising in Split. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Štefica Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant owns a house in Knin. On 4 July 1997, in line with the applicable legislation, the Croatian authorities gave his house for temporary use to M.P.
In 1999 the applicant filed a request for repossession of his property with the Knin Housing Commission (Stambena komisija Knin) (“the Housing Commission”).
On 23 July 1999 the Housing Commission set aside its decision of 4 July 1997. However, it established that M.P. had the right to stay in the applicant’s house until he was provided with alternative accommodation by the State.
Sometime in 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against M.P. in the Knin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kninu). On 16 January 2002 the Municipal Court ordered M.P. to vacate the applicant’s house, with the proviso that he could stay in the house until he was granted alternative accommodation.
On an appeal by the applicant, on 4 March 2002 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) upheld the first-instance judgment. On 5 February 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint.
On 28 June 2005 the applicant repossessed his house.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the inability to repossess his house over a prolonged period of time.
THE LAW
By letter of 3 January 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the applicant waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 12 January 2007 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 7,000 euros in full and final settlement of his claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be 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