FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31956/18 Mara JURIŠIĆ and others against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Erik Wennerström , Ioannis Ktistakis , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2018,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2 . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms S. Stažnik .

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

4 . The applicants ’ husband and father was killed in May 1994. In July 1994 criminal proceedings ensued against three persons in relation to the killing. Those proceedings are currently still pending.

5 . In a constitutional complaint which the applicants lodged in 2017 against the decisions given by the domestic courts in a parallel set of civil proceedings for damages against the State, the applicants complained, inter alia, that the investigation into the killing of their husband and father had been ineffective. In its decision rendered on 31 January 2018, the Constitutional Court did not examine that complaint.

6 . The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of Kušić v. Croatia (( dec. ), no. 71667/17, §§ 37-56, 10 December 2019).

COMPLAINT

7 . The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention of the lack of an adequate procedural response by the domestic authorities to the killing of their husband and father.

THE LAW

8 . The applicants relied on the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. ...”

9 . The Government contended that the applicants had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint, an effective domestic remedy for complaints concerning ineffective investigations under Article 2 of the Convention.

10 . The applicants submitted that they had properly exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of their complaint.

11 . The Court notes that in 2017 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint in which they complained that the investigation into the killing of their husband and father had been ineffective , but the Constitutional Court did not examine that complaint (see paragraph 5 above). The Court notes that the Constitutional Court ’ s decision in question was delivered in 2018 – a year before a constitutional complaint became an effective domestic remedy for such complaints (see Kušić , cited above, §§ 93 and 99).

12 . Since the investigation into the killing of the applicants ’ husband and father is still ongoing – that is, the criminal proceedings for the criminal offence of which the applicant ’ s husband and father was the victim are still pending (see paragraph 4 above) – the Court holds, as in Kušić (cited above, §§ 100-107) and Marić v. Croatia (( dec. ), no. 37333/17, § 43, 10 November 2020), that the applicants in the present case are required to lodge a constitutional complaint.

13 . It remains open for the applicants, following the termination of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, or if those proceedings become unreasonably protracted, to bring their complaints before the Court if they still consider themselves to be victims of a violation of the Convention.

14 . The Court accordingly upholds the Government ’ s objection. The applicants ’ complaint under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

Represented by lawyer

1.Mara JURIŠIĆ

1964Croatian

Daruvar

A. Mihoci

2.Ilija JURIŠIĆ

1990Croatian

Daruvar

A. Mihoci

3.Pejo JURIŠIĆ

1994Croatian

Daruvar

A. Mihoci

4.Božica MARIJANOVIĆ

1992Croatian

Daruvar

A. Mihoci