FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11508/05 by Ratko and Darinka VUKSANOVIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rig hts (First Section), sitting on 28 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mr D. Spielmann , Mr S.E. Jebens , Mr G. Malinverni, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 March 2005 ,

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 d eliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Ratko Vuksanović and Mrs Darinka Vuksanović , are Croatian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1943 respectively and live in Zagreb . They were represented before the Court by Mrs T . Burjačenko Grubiša and Mrs B. Ivanišević, lawyers practising in Zagreb . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represen ted by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik .

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

On 19 July 1993 the applicants ’ summer house in the village of Mrežnički Brig near Duga Resa was blown up by unknown perpetrators.

On 3 February 1996 the A mendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist ac ts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.

On 10 July 1998 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) seeking damages.

On 9 November 1999 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.

On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrat ions (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force .

Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 18 December 2003 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and on 3 October 2005 dismissed the applicants ’ claim. The applicants appealed.

On 7 February 2006 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) accepted the appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.

It appears that the proceedings are currently again pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.

Meanwhile, on 31 January 2003 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 24 September 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the complaint finding violations of the applicants ’ constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded them 4,400 Croatian kunas in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision was published on 13 October 2004 .

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that Parliament ’ s enactment of the 1996 Amendment had violated their right of access to a court.

THE LAW

By letter of 21 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicants 2,700 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included.

On 30 May 2007 the applicant s informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby they waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.

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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it sh ould be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the applic ation out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President