FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 14601/02 by Mladen PAVKOVIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 5 June 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr E. Levits , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 February 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mladen Pavković, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1935 and lives in Lipik, Croatia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 26 April 1992 the applicant’s house in Slobodnica , Croatia was destroyed by a mine laid by persons unknown.

On 27 September 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Slavonskom Brodu ), seeking damages from the Slavonski Brod Municipality ( Općina Slavonski Brod ).

On 23 November 1993 the applicant’s claim was rejected. The court found that the Slavonski Brod Municipality was not responsible for damages caused by terrorist acts. Instead, the applicant should have file a claim against the Republic of Croatia.

The applicant’s subsequent appeal was rejected on 25 April 1994 by the Požega County Court ( Županijski sud u Požegi ).

On 27 June 1994 the applicant filed a request for revision on the points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ).

On 17 January 1996 the Croatian Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that, before the enactment of such new legislation, damages for terrorist acts could not be sought. So far the Croatian authorities have not enacted any new legislation regulating the matter.

Due to the above legislation, the Supreme Court returned the case file to the Municipal Court without adopting any decision.

On 14 February 1996 the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.

The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 2 February 1998 the applicant introduced an application with the former European Commission of Human Rights complaining under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the destruction of his home. He further alleged a violation of Article 3 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 in that his house had been destroyed with a view to forcing him to leave Croatia.

On 22 October 1998 the Commission declared the applicant’s application inadmissible (Application no. 42085/98, Dec. 22. 10. 98., unreported).

On 14 July 2000 the Požega County Court ( Županijski sud u Požegi ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 14 February 1996 to stay the domestic proceedings.

The applicant’s subsequent request for revision was rejected as inadmissible on 27 June 2001 by the Supreme Court.

The applicant then filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the decisions to stay the proceedings concerning his civil claim for damages violated his right to property. On 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s claim

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima ) reads as follows:

Section 180(1)

“Responsibility for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another’s property, when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations, lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty, according to the laws in force, to prevent such loss.”

The relevant parts of the Act Amending the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima – Official Gazette no. 7/1996) read as follows:

Section 1

“Section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) shall be repealed.”

Section 2

“Proceedings for damages instituted under section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act shall be stayed.

The proceedings referred to in sub-section 1 of this section shall be continued after the enactment of special legislation governing responsibility for damage resulting from terrorist acts.”

The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Act provides:

Section 212

“Proceedings shall be stayed:

...

(6) where another statute so prescribes.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his civil claim has never been decided.

The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to property was violated in so far as his property has been destroyed.

He also complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 claiming that he had been forced to leave Croatia.

He further complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his ethnic origin.

Finally, the applicant invokes Articles 3 and 17 of the Convention claiming that he was subjected to inhuman treatment and punishment and that the authorities abused their powers.

THE LAW

1. The applicant firstly complains that his civil claim for damages has never been decided. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession was violated because his house was destroyed. He also complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 that he had been forced to leave Croatia.

The Court notes that the same complaints were advanced by the applicant in his previous application which was declared inadmissible by the former Commission on 22 October 1998 and that the present application does not contain any relevant new information.

It follows that this part of the application, being substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Commission, must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 2(b) of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains further that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his ethnic origin contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

The Court recalls that according to its established case-law regarding the scope of the guarantee provided under Article 14, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if “it has no objective and reasonable justification”, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or if there is no “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised” (see, for example, Gaygusuz v. Austria , judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1142, § 42).

The Court notes that in the present case the changes in legislation equally apply to all persons in the applicant’s position.

It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. Finally, the applicant invokes Articles 3 and 17 of the Convention claiming that he was subjected to inhuman treatment and punishment and that the authorities abused their powers.

The Court finds that, in the light of the all material in its possession and, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that his part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning his right of access to court;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos R OZAKIS              Deputy Registrar President