SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13920/04 by Tomislav and Branislav KATI Ć against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 9 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Danutė Jočienė , Dragoljub Popović , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2004,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr Tomislav and Borislav Kati ć , are Serbian nationals who were born in 1948 and 1953, respectively , and live in Mrakovac . They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Bogosavljević , a lawyer practising in Velika Plana. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić .

On 19 June 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to invite the Government to submit their written observations in the case.

On 4 March 2008 the Court struck the application out of its list as the parties reached a friendly settlement, agreeing on a sum of 6,000 euros in compensation to be used for the applicants ' benefit.

As it appeared that the settlement sum had not been used to the best interest of the applicants, the Court decided to restore the application to its list, granting the application priority treatment (see Katić v. Serbia ( dec .), no. 13920/04, 7 July 2009).

THE FACTS

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

Both applicants are mentally disabled, which is why they were totally dependant on their father ' s financial support while he was alive.

On 28 June 1983, however, the applicants ' father died in a traffic accident and the applicants were left with no income of their own.

Since 1987 the applicants had pursued the accident claim against a major Serbian insurance company. They sought accrued and ongoing maintenance, together with statutory interest, recovery of their father ' s funeral expenses and legal costs.

On 2 February 2005 the Social Care Centre ( Centar za socijalni rad ) in Velika Plana (“the Centre”) issued a decision depriving the applicants of their legal capacity ( poslovna sposobnost ), and on 31 March 2005 it appointed Mr B.M. as their guardian.

On 30 April 2008 the Government, as specified in the friendly settlement, paid the 6,000 euros to a bank account opened on behalf of the applicants, and the Centre appointed an interim guardian ( privremeni staratelj ) to manage the spending of this sum. The guardian in question is herself an employee of the Centre, and, as such, under its direct supervision.

Following seven remittals, on 14 October 2008 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicants. In particular, the insurance company wa s ordered to pay each applicant 803,174 dinars (approximately 9,900 euros ) together with statutory interest as of 1 July 2008, as well as a total of 943,587.50 dinars (approximately 11,650 euros ) for legal costs.

It would appear that the judgment of 14 October 2008 is still pending on appeal , even though the insurance company appears to have paid the sums awarded.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants invoked Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In substance, however, they complained about the overall fairness and length of the above proceedings.

THE LAW

On 5 November 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I declare that the Government of Serbia are willing to take all necessary steps in order to ensure that the remainder of the sum of 6,000 E uros, already paid to the applicants as part of a prior friendly settlement in the above case, shall be used in their best interest s .

In particular, within four months as of the date of signature of this declaration, the said sum shall be spent so as to ensure that :

( i ) the applicants ' home (including roofing, electrical installations, etc.) is adequately repaired;

( ii) the bathroom is appropriately renovated and/or equipped ;

( iii) the basic home appliances are bought and installed ;

( iv) any remaining funds are spent for the applicants ' subsistence, such as food and clothing, either by means of a monthly allowance or otherwise in a timely fashion.

The Government shall also review the applicants ' guardianship and put in place a more responsive system which would take into account the applicants ' special circumstances. To that end the Government shall either appoint a new guardian from among the applicants ' family and friends, or make sure that the current guardian perform s her duties with a due standard of care.

The above undertakings shall constitute the final resolution of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. ”

On 28 January 2010 the applicants ' representative accepted the Government ' s above offer on the applicants ' behalf.

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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President