FIRST SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 19880/02
by Zoran IVKOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner, judges,
and Mr S. NIELSEN, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2002,
Having regard to the partial decision of 18 September 2003 and 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 respondent Government's letter dated 1 March 2004, and the applicant's representative letter dated 26 February 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zoran Ivković, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1949 and lives in Ogulin, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Ms T. Burjačenko Grubiša, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Ms L. Lukina Karajković.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 August 1991 the applicant's coffee bar in Ogulin, Croatia was destroyed by a mine laid by unknown perpetrators.
On 17 January 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court, seeking damages from the State.
On 17 January 1996 the Croatian Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act, which provided that all actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
It appears that the court subsequently stayed the proceedings.
On 14 July 2003 the Croatian Parliament enacted the Act on the Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Official Gazette of 23 July 2003, no. 17/2003).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant maintained that the Parliament's enactment of the 1996 legislation violated his right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and his right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter of 26 February 2004 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 1 March 2004 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant EUR 6,000 in full and final settlement of the applicant's claim under the Convention, 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 and 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 NielsenPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy