FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 9552/02 by Igor KATIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) , sitting on 28 November 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mrs F. Tulkens , Mr P. Lorenzen , 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 22 November 2001,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Igor Katić, is a Croatian citizen, who was born in 1929 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Sometime in autumn 1991 the Croatian Army confiscated a vehicle belonging to the applicant.

On 15 July 1992 the vehicle was returned to the applicant, but it was severely damaged.

On 5 January 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) against the Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defense , seeking damages for his vehicle.

On 10 March 1998 the court gave a judgment awarding the applicant’s request.

It appears that the Republic of Croatia appealed against the judgment.

On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced a change of the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings against the Republic of Croatia concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army or police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.

Pursuant to the above Act, on 4 April 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.

The applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the decision to stay the proceedings concerning his claim for damages.

On 11 December 2000 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as inadmissible.

On 27 March 2001 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the 1999 legislation. The claim is pending before the Constitutional Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 184 (a) of the Act on Changes of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o dopunama Zakonu o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette no. 112/1999) provides that all proceedings instituted against the Republic of Croatia for damages caused by the members of the Croatian army or police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War in Croatia from 7 August 1990 to 30 June 1996 are to be stayed.

The Act also imposes an obligation on the Government to submit to Parliament special legislation, regulating the responsibility for such damages, at the latest within six months from the entry into force of the Act.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant maintains that Parliament’s enactment of the 1999 legislation interferes with his right to a fair trial.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to property was violated because his vehicle was confiscated from him and returned severely damaged

3. The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he has been prevented from obtaining compensation for his vehicle due to his Serbian origin.

THE LAW

1. The applicant firstly complains that the changes of the Civil Obligations Act from 1999 which prevented him from having his claim for damages decided by the domestic courts violated his right to a fair trial, relying on Article 6§ 1 of the Convention, the relevant part 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. Secondly, the applicant complains that by confiscation of his vehicle and its damaging, as well as because he is not able to obtain any compensation in this respect, the domestic authorities violated his right to property, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which read as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Court reiterates that in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with regard to that Party (see, for example, X. v. Portugal, application no. 9453/81, Commission decision of 13 December 1982, Decisions and Reports (DR) 31 pp. 204, 208 and Kadikis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47634/99, 29 June 2000).

The Court recalls that Croatia recognised the competence of the Court to receive applications “from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation by Croatia of the rights recognised in the Convention through any act, decision or event occurring after 5 November 1997.” Accordingly, the Court is not competent to examine the present application in so far as it refers to facts occurring before the date of the ratification of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicant’s vehicle was confiscated in 1991, before Croatia ratified the Convention. The Court considers that this was an instantaneous act of deprivation of property which did not create any continuous situation.

The Court notes further that although the legislative interference took place after the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia it was so closely related to the events that gave rise to the applicant’s claim that divorcing the two would amount to giving retroactive effect to the Convention which would be contrary to general principles of international law. At the same time it would render Croatia’s declaration recognising the Court’s competence to receive individual applications nugatory (see Kadikis v. Latvia , cited above, and the Stamulakatos v. Greece judgment of 30 September 1993, Series A no. 271, p. 14, § 33).

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

3. The applicant further complains that he has been discriminated against because he is not able to obtain any compensation for his vehicle due to his Serbian origin, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

The Court recalls that a possible violation of Article 14 of a Convention must entail a difference in treatment based on one of the grounds expressly established in the text of that provision.

As to the present case, the Court notes that there has been no indication of a difference in treatment in respect of the applicant on any such ground as the legislation in question has been equally applied 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint that he has been deprived of his right to a fair trial;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos R OZAKIS              Deputy Registrar President