FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18221/03 by Milan BOGUNOVI Ć against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr K. Hajiyev , 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 13 May 2003,

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 Milan Bogunović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Zrenjanin , Serbia . He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Mihočević, a lawyer practising in Zagreb . The Croatian Government were r epresented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik .

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

The applicant was the owner of a special vehicle for apiculture. On 2 March 1993 the vehicle, including 98 bee-hives, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.

On 31 March 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) seeking damages.

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

On 8 July 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.

On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations entered into force. It provided, inter alia , that all proceedings stayed pursuant to the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed.

Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act , on 12 January 2004 the Municipal Court decided to resume the proceedings.

On 20 October 2004 the Municipal Court declared the applicant ’ s action inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant appealed on 23 November 2004.

On 13 December 2006 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.

It appears that the case is currently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.

Meanwhile, on 20 May 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 28 June 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant ’ s complaint and found violations of his constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and access to a court. It awarded him 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 one year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision was published on 20 July 2004.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention that Parliament ’ s enactment of the 1996 Amendment and the resultant stay of the proceedings had violated his right of access to a court.

THE LAW

By letter of 23 February 2007 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 3,2 00 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included.

On 26 March 2007 the applicant informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby he 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