FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 51585/99 by Ankica HORVAT against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 16 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr M. Pellonpää, President , Mr G. Ress, Mr I. Cabral Barreto, Mr V. Butkevych, Mrs N. Vajić, Mr J. Hedigan, Mrs S. Botoucharova , judges ,

and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 20 April 1999 and registered on 5 October 1999 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1933 and living in Zagreb , Croatia .

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

During 1992 the applicant lent various sums of money to a number of companies, including the following:

- on 2 July 1992 to “Enigma”, a company in Zagreb , 1.665 American Dollars (US$) for a period of 13 months at a rate of interest of 18 %;

- on 15 September 1992 to “F.I.M.”, a company in Zagreb, 8.000 German Marks (DEM) for a period between 3 and 6 months at a rate of interest of 25 %;

- on 19 October 1992 to “M.J.B.”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 10.000 for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 27 %;

- on 23 November 1992 to “ZIP”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 15.000 for a period of 1 month at a rate of interest of 20 %.

As the said companies failed to repay the loans, the applicant instituted proceedings against “Enigma” and “F.I.M.” with the Zagreb Municipal Court which ruled in the applicant's favour on 15 May 1995 and 4 December 1996 . The applicant has never sought judicial enforcement of those decisions.

The applicant also instituted proceedings with the same court against “ZIP” and “M.J.B.“ on 29 March 1995 and 30 March 1995, respectively, and the court has not yet reached any decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about the length of the civil proceedings which are still pending and invokes the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, the right to an effective remedy and the right to the protection of her property. She relies on Articles 6 § 1, 4 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

THE LAW

1. The applicant firstly complains that the length of the proceedings that began on 29 March 1995 and 30 March 1995 has been excessive. In both proceedings, the Court of first instance has not yet reached any decision.

The applicant invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...)”

2. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention, that she has no remedy to accelerate the proceedings before the first instance Court.

The Court considers, having regard to all the information in its possession, that it cannot determine the admissibility of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings before the Court of first instance, and appreciate the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. The applicant further complains under Article 4 of the Convention.

The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate such a complaint in any respect.

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

4. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Such a complaint in regard to the cases that were decided in 1995 and 1996, respectively, is incompatible ratione temporis , as the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 , and the applicant has never sought judicial enforcement of those decisions. The complaint under that same Article in respect to the cases that are sill pending is premature and, therefore, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must, therefore, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant 's complaints that the length of the proceedings still pending before the first instance court exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that she has in this respect been deprived of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Vincent Berger Matti Pellonpää              Registrar              President