FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 12744/13 Dušan LONČAR and O thers against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

Isabelle Berro , President, Elisabeth Steiner , Julia Laffranque , Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Erik Møse , Ksenija Turković , Dmitry Dedov , judges, and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 January 2013 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicants, Mr Du š an Lon č ar, Ms Miholjka Lon č ar and Mr Milo š Lon č ar , are Croatian nationals, who were born in 1951 and 1972 respectively . They all live in Vojni ć and were represented before the Court by Ms S. Č ankovi ć , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

2. The first applicant died on 1 June 2013.

3. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M s Å . Sta ž nik.

A. The circumstances of the case

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background to the case

5. During 1991 and 1992 S e rbian paramilitary forces gained control over about a third of the territory of Croatia and proclaimed the “ Serbian Autonomous R egion of Krajina” ( Srpska autonomna oblast Krajina , hereinafter “Krajina”). At the beginning of August 1995 the Croatian authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over “Krajina”. The operation was c odenamed “Storm” and took place from 4 to 7 August 1995. Before the military action , the vast majority of the population of “Krajina” had fled Croatia . They went firstly to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later on many of them went to live in Serbia. Some returned to Croatia after the war. The number of people who fled is estimated at between 100,000 and 150,000.

2. Killing of the applicants ’ relative

6. In January 2005 the authorities learned that a close relative of the applicants, N.L., had been killed during the operation “Storm” or immediately afterwards, in August 1995, on the territory of “Krajina”. The police opened an inquiry into the circumstances of his death.

7. In January 2006 the police interviewed the first and second applicants, who had no direct knowledge about the circumstances in which N.L. had died.

8. M.L., also interviewed in January 2006, said that in August 1995 she had been in a convoy comprising people, tractors and “military armoured vehicles”. N.L. had also been in that convoy. He had been dressed in a Serbian army uniform and had been wearing an army mask. The convoy had been attacked but she had not seen how N.L. had died. R.T., interviewed at the same time, confirmed M.L. ’ s statement.

9. On 10 July 2006 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the State Attorney ’ s Office against unknown perpetrators in connection with the killing of N.L.

10. On 11 April 2008 the body of N.L. was exhumed. It was dressed in a military uniform with a military identity card.

11. On 21 May 2008 the Sisak County State Attorney ’ s Office dismissed the applicants ’ criminal complaint on the grounds that N.L. had been killed in combat between a unit of the paramilitary Serbian forces and the Fifth Corpus of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This decision was served on the applicants ’ representative on 28 May 2008.

COMPLAINT

12. The applicants complained under Article s 2 and 13 of the Convention of deficiencies in the investigation into the killing of N.L.

THE LAW

13 . The applicant s complain ed that the authorities had not taken appropriate and ad equate steps to investigate the circumstances in which their relative, N.L., had been killed. They also claimed that they had had no effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 2 and 1 3 of the Convention, which read as follows :

Article 2

“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

Article 1 3

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

A. The parties ’ submissions

14 . The Government argued that Article 2 was not applicable to the circumstances of the present case because the killing of a soldier during combat did not engage the procedural obligation of the State.

15 . The Government further maintained that the application had been lodged outside the six-month time - limit . T he applicant ’ s representative had been informed about the decision of the Sisak County State Attorney ’ s Office on 28 May 2008 and the present application had been lodged on 10 January 2013.

16 . The applicant s argued that they had complied with all of the admissibility criteria.

B . The Court ’ s assessment

17. The Court does not have to address all the issues raised by the parties, as this application is in any event inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 of the Convention for the following reasons.

18. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002 ‑ III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).

19. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Sisak County State Attorney ’ s Office concluded that the applicants ’ relative, N.L., had died in combat. A decision to that effect, dismissing the applicants ’ criminal complaint, was adopted on 21 May 2008 and served on the applicants ’ lawyer on 28 May 2008.

20. However, the applicants lodged the application with the Court more than four years later. They have not put forward any justification for this delay.

21. It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015 .

Søren Nielsen Isabelle Berro Registrar President