SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 21610/13 Marija RIBIĆ and O thers against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12 January 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President, Ksenija Turković, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2013,

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. They were all represented by L. Å u Å¡ ak, a lawyer practicing in Zagreb.

2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Å . Sta ž nik.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background to the case

4. In 1991 the armed conflict escalated in Croatia. During the years 1991 and 1992 Serbian paramilitary forces gained control of about one third of the territory of Croatia and proclaimed the so-called “Serbian Autonomous region of Krajina” ( Srpska autonomna oblast Krajina , hereinafter the “Krajina”). At the beginning of August 1995 the Croatian authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over the Krajina. The action was codenamed “Storm” and lasted from 4 to 7 August 1995. Before that action, the vast majority of the population of the Krajina had fled Croatia. Most of them went to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also to Serbia. Some returned to Croatia after the war. The number of people who fled is estimated at between 100,000 and 150,000.

5. On 5 November 1997 Croatia ratified the Convention.

2. Death of the applicants ’ father

6. During the action codenamed “Storm” the applicants ’ father, D.B., stayed in the village of D ž eparovac at the territory of Krajina. He was killed in that village on10 August 1995.

7. On 10 December 2001 one S.K. lodged to the State Attorney ’ s Office a list of persons allegedly killed during the action “Storm”. The name of D.B. featured on that list.

8. On 3 and 7 January 2002 the police interviewed Ma.M., Mi.M., N.B., M.P. and M.L., inhabitants of D ž eparovac, who had no direct knowledge of the killing of the applicants ’ father.

9. On 22 January 2002 the police again interviewed Mi.M. and Ma.M. Mi.M. said that he had not been in Croatia between 1995 and 1997 and that he had heard that D.B. had been killed but also that he had drowned. Ma. M. said that he had not been in Croatia between 1995 and 1998. After his return he had heard various stories about the killing of D.B., but had no precise knowledge about it.

10. On 5 February 2002 the police again interviewed M.P. and N.B. M.P. said that he had not been in Croatia between 1995 and 1997. He had heard that D.B. and seven other persons had been found dead in a pool. Some said that they had been hiding there from Croatian army and had drowned while others said that they had been executed. N.P. said that he had heard that N.B. had been found dead near a stream. He had also heard that D.B. had been dressed in a uniform and that he had been killed in the course of “an unspecified conflict”.

11. On 7 February the police interviewed Ɖ .V. and A.S., also inhabitants of D ž eparovac. Ɖ .V. said that several days after the action “Storm” he and several other inhabitants of D ž eparovac had found the body of D.B. near a stream. There had been two bullet shots at the left side of the body. They had buried him at the spot where the body had been found. A.S. said that she had heard that the army had stopped D.B. near a stream but since he had been hard of hearing, he had not heard them and had been shot dead.

12. D.B. ’ s remains were exhumed in March 2003 and the autopsy carried out in November 2003 established that “an explosive device” had been t he cause of his death.

13. On 10 March 2006 the police again interviewed Ɖ.V. who repeated his prior statement.

14. On 10 July 2006 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the State Attorney ’ s Office against an unknown perpetrator in connection with the killing of their father.

3. Civil proceedings

15. On 26 February 2004 the applicants brought a civil claim against the State, seeking damages in connection with the death of their father. Their claim was dismissed. The final decision in these proceedings was adopted by the Constitutional Court on 3 October 2012.

COMPLAINTS

16. The applicants complained under the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that the available criminal-law mechanisms in connection with the death of their father were inefficient, and that the national authorities had not investigated possible ethnic motives for his death, as required under Article 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

17. The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of their father D.B. and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They also claimed that their father had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. They relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under 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. ...”

1. The parties ’ submissions

18. The Government argued that the applicants had lodged the application outside the six-month time-limit, because they had never enquired about the progress of the investigation into the circumstances of their father ’ s death. The applicants should have become aware in 2003 that there had been no further progress in the investigation.

19. The applicants argued that they had complied with all of the admissibility criteria.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

20. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08 , § 258, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

21. Where no remedies are available or are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit in principle runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002). However, special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where an applicant avails himself of or relies on an apparently existing remedy and only later becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective; in such a case it is appropriate to take as the start of the six ‑ month period the date when he or she first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances rendering the remedy ineffective (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).

22. As regards the applicants ’ civil action for damages, the Court notes that they asked for compensation in connection with the death of their father. However, these proceedings are not, in the circumstances of the present case, relevant to the State ’ s procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, and therefore do not affect the running of the six-month period (compare to Narin v. Turkey , no. 18907/02 , § 48, 15 December 2009 ).

23. The Court reiterates that th e obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State ’ s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis , McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom , 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 161; and Kaya v. Turkey , 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, § 86; and Paul and Audrey Edwards , cited above, § 69).

24. The Court reiterates that an applicant whose father had died may be expected to display a certain amount of diligence and initiative (see, mutatis mutandis , Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002). The national authorities learned of the death of the applicants ’ father in 2001. The police interviewed a number of potential witnesses in 2002. The last interview with a potential witness was carried out in March 2006. No other steps have been taken ever since.

25. Given the above circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the applicants should have become aware long before March 2013, when they lodged their application with the Court, that there had been no further efforts to establish the circumstances of the death of their father since March 2006. However, they lodged the application with the Court about seven years after that.

26. It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 February 2016 .

Abel Campos Jon Fridrik Kjølbro              Deputy Registrar President

Appendix