SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 57849/13 Danijela LOVRIĆ and others 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 3 September 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 are all Croatian nationals and represented by Mr M. Karaica, a lawyer practicing in Karlovac.

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.

4. The applicants ’ respective son and brother, B.M., was shot by two bullets on 2 October 1991 in Karlovac. He died in hospital on 5 October 1991 in Karlovac of wounds caused by the said gun shots.

5. Croatia ratified the Convention on 5 November 1997.

6. Before the ratification of the Convention by Croatia an investigation was opened and the police carried out an in situ inspection and interviewed a number of potential witnesses. A ballistic expertise was commissioned and an autopsy was also carried out.

7. After the ratification of the Convention the following steps were taken. In February 2005 the second applicant approached the Karlovac County State Attorney ’ s Office and complained about the inefficiency of the investigation into the death of her son B.M.

8. Between April 2005 and June 2006 the prosecuting authorities interviewed seven witnesses. The last interview took place on 14 June 2006. There has been no further progress in the investigation ever since.

COMPLAINT

9. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the available criminal-law mechanisms in connection with the death of their respective son and brother were inefficient.

THE LAW

Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

10. The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of their respective son and brother B.M. and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They relied on 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

11. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. They contended that the applicants could have lodged a complaint against individual police officers or employees of the State Attorney ’ s Office who had been in charge of the investigation into the death of their respective son and brother. Such a complaint could have led to the institution of disciplinary proceedings. As regards protection against alleged unlawfulness in the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Government pointed out that the applicants could have sought damages from the State under the State Administration Act. They argued that such a combination of remedies had been found effective by the Court in the case of D.J. v. Croatia (no. 42418/10 , 24 July 2012) .

12. They further maintained that the application had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit, because the applicants had submitted their application with the Court about twenty-two years after their relative had been killed.

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

2. The Court ’ s assessment

14. The Court does not have to address all the issues raised by the parties, as this part of the application is in any event inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 of the Convention for the following reasons.

15. 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)).

16. 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).

17. As regards the applicants ’ civil action for damages, the Court notes that they asked for compensation in connection with the death of their respective son and brother. 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 ).

18. 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 ).

19. The Court reiterates that applicants whose respective son and brother 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). In the instant case, the Court notes that while it is true that the applicants enquired about the progress of the investigation into the death of their respective son and brother, they nevertheless failed to bring their complaints before the Court in due time. The investigation was opened in 1992 and the last relevant steps were taken by the prosecuting authorities in June 2006 when some potential witnesses were interviewed. No other steps have been taken ever since.

20. Given the above circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the applicants should have become aware long before September 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 respective son and brother since June 2006. However, they lodged the application with the Court more than seven years after that.

21. 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