Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57

October 2003

Aćimović v. Croatia - 61237/00

Judgment 9.10.2003 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Legislation staying civil proceedings concerning damage of property during the war: violation

Facts : The applicant’s cottage was used for military purposes by the Croatian army between 1992 and 1995. When the army left his house, he that it had been devastated and his possessions had been removed. In March 1996, he instituted civil proceedings in the Municipal Court, claiming compensation from the State. In November 1999, amendments were introduced to the Civil Obligations Act, with the effe ct that all proceedings concerning claims for damages resulting from acts of the army or police during the war were stayed and in consequence the Municipal Court formally stayed the proceedings which the applicant had instituted. Despite the fact that the amended Civil Obligations Act imposed an obligation on the Government to adopt within six months new legislation on State liability for damages caused by members of the army or police during the war, such a law was not enacted until July 2003.

Law : Articl e 6 § 1 – Although the right of access to a court is not absolute and it may be subject to limitations, there are dangers inherent in applying legislation retroactively with the effect of influencing the judicial determination of a dispute to which the Sta te is a party. In the present case, the adoption of two new legislative measures with retrospective effect interfered with the applicant’s right to compensation, which up to then was clearly recognised in domestic law. It was not for the Court to speculate as to the outcome of the domestic proceedings under the new legislation; it could not be said that the new legislation enacted in 2003 deprived him of his right of access to a court. However, by virtue of the 1999 amendments civil proceedings were stayed for over three years and the Municipal Court was unable to continue examining the applicant’s claim for damages until the new legislation came into force. The authorities failed to adopt legislation on State liability within six months as they had committe d themselves to do, and during this period the applicant was left in a prolonged state of uncertainty as to the outcome of the proceedings. In these circumstances, the degree of access afforded under national legislation was not sufficient to secure the ap plicant the “right to a court”. The long period of time during which the applicant was prevented from having his claim determined constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 ─ The Court awarded the applicant 4 ,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes