FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 20230/15 Antonio MARAS against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President, Erik Wennerström , Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 April 2015,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 July 2017 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, Mr Antonio Maras, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1991 and lives in Split. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Å timac , a lawyer practising in Split.

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

3 . The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision of the second-instance court to overturn the decision of the first-instance court ordering the accused to reimburse him the costs and expenses he had incurred by participating in the criminal proceedings as the injured party (victim), had been unlawful and unjustified.

4 . The application had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

5 . The applicant complained about the decisions of the second-instance criminal court to reverse the first-instance decision on costs which had been in his favour. He relied on Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

6 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 21 July 2017 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

7 . The declaration provided as follows:

“I declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, that the Government of the Republic of Croatia:

(a) acknowledges that in the instant case there has been a violation of the applicant ’ s right under Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 to the Convention; and

( b ) is ready to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 1,350 to cover any and all pecuniary and non- pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

This sum will be converted into Croatian kunas at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the account indicated by the applicant. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

8 . By a letter of 14 August 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount offered did not take into account the costs of the constitutional complaint and was insufficient to cover the costs of the proceedings before the Court.

9 . The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

10 . It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

11 . To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

12 . The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Croatia, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions related to the costs of proceedings (see, for example, Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, § § 57-79 16 November 2010; Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, § § 108-110, 18 July 2013; and Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, § § 91-111, 6 September 2016).

13 . Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which corresponds to the amounts initially awarded to the applicant by the first-instance criminal court in the proceedings complained of – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

14 . Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

15 . The Court notes the modalities agreed by the respondent Government for the payment of the amount proposed.

16 . Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

17 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

18 . Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides that when an application has been struck out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention the Court has the discretion to award costs. The general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Union of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia ( dec. ), no. 72874/01, 21 April 2015). Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court in the present case considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 810 in respect of the costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention

Holds,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 810 (eight hundred and ten euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into Croatian kunas , at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him,

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020.

Renata Degener Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Deputy Registrar President