FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 29919/04 by Milan Ž IGI Ć against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr L. Loucaides , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr A. Kovler , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 May 2004 ,

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 Žigić , is a Croatian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Banja Luka , Bosnia and Herzegovina . He is represented before the Court by Ms J. Male š evi ć , a lawyer practising in Zagreb . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M s Štefica Stažnik .

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

The applicant owns a house in Korenica , Croatia , where he lived until 1995. On 12 January 1996 , in line with the applicable legislation, the Croatian authorities gave the applicant ’ s house for temporary use to D.D.

On 24 August 1998 the applicant filed a request for repossession of his property with the Plitvička Jezera Housing Commission ( Stambena komisija Plitvička jezera ) (“the Housing Commission”).

On 9 June 1999 the Housing Commission set aside its decision of 12 January 1996 and ordered D.D. to move out of the house within 15 days. It established that D.D. no longer had the right to live in the house, as he was using it to run a café. On 20 July 1999 the Housing Commission again ordered D.D. to vacate the house, but in vain.

In 1999 the Housing Commission brought a civil action against D.D. in the Korenica Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Korenici ). On 2 April 2001 the court gave judgment ordering D.D. to vacate the applicant ’ s house. On 18 June 2001 the court issued an enforcement order to that end. On 31 August 2001 the Gospić County Court ( Županijski sud u Gospiću ) dismissed D.D. ’ s appeal against the enforcement order.

On 14 April 2003 the Korenica Municipal Court set the date of enforcement of the above decision for 3 June 2003 . D.D. requested postponement of the enforcement. Since his request was dismissed only on 31 July 2003 , the scheduled enforcement never took place.

The applicant subsequently sought to intervene in the enforcement proceedings. His request was granted by the Municipal Court on 25 February 2004 and upheld by the County Court on 5 April 2004 .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings . He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his length complaint, claiming that all constitutional complaints in similar cases have been declared inadmissible. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the protracted character of the proceedings violated his property rights.

THE LAW

On 19 May 2006 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 13,0 00 euros in full and final settlement of his claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included.

By letter of 30 June 2006 the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the applicant 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 application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President