FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 75660/12 and 75912/12 Ante ŽUŽUL against Croatia and Ruža ŽUŽUL against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 24 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Ksenija Turković , judges,

and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 5 and 8 November 2012 respectively,

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government on 10 December 2014 and 9 February 2015 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the second applicant ’ s reply to those declaration s ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant s , Mr Ante Žužul and Ms Ruža Žužul , are Croatian national s who were born in 1947 and 1952 and live in Zagreb. They were represented before the Court by Ms S. Žužul .

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

3. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of enforcement proceedings .

4. The applications had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

5 . Given that the two applications at hand concern the same facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.

B . Alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

6 . The applicant s complained about the length of the enforcement proceedings for partition of immovable property that in the relevant period lasted some twelve years and ten months.

7. After the failure of attempts to reach a fri endly settlement, by letter s of 11 March and 10 December 2014 and 9 February 2015 the Government informed the Co urt that they proposed to make unilateral declaration s with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applicatio ns in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

8. Both declaration s provided that the Government of Croatia :

“ (a) acknowledges that in the instant case there has been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; and

( b ) is ready to pay to the applicant 1,215 euros to cover any and all 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 undertake 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. ”

9. By a letter of 4 April 2014 the applicants ’ representative indicated that the second applicant was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration because the sum offered by the Government was unacceptably low. The applicants ’ representative did not submit any comments in reply to the Government ’ s unilateral declaration in the first applicant ’ s case.

10. The Court reiterates 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”.

11. It further 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.

12. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles e stablished in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

13. The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ V ; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007) , including those brought against Croatia (see, for example , Horvat v. Croatia , no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia , no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavić v. Croatia , no. 21846/08 , 28 January 2010 ) , its practice concerning co mplaints about the violation of one ’ s right to a h earing within a reasonable time.

14. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).

15. 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

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 s out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration s under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2015 .

André Wampach Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Deputy Registrar President