Information Note on the Court’s case-law 40

March 2002

Kutić v. Croatia - 48778/99

Judgment 1.3.2002 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Legislation staying all civil proceedings relating to claims for damage in respect of terrorist acts: violation

Facts : The applicants’ house was destroyed in 1991 following an explosion. In November 1994 they brought an action for damages against the Republic of Croatia. In January 1996, while the proceedings were pending, an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act was introduced, providing that all proceedings concerning actions for damage resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation and that in the meantime damages could not be sought in respect of such acts. The proceedings brought by the applicants were duly stayed in April 1998. Further proceedings which they had brought in connection with the destruct ion of their garage and other buildings in an explosion were similarly stayed in July 2000.

Law : Article 6 § 1 – The right of access to a court is not limited to the right to institute proceedings but includes the right to obtain a determination of the dis pute by a court. The legislative provision at issue had hindered the applicants’ right to have their civil claims for damages decided by a court and they were thus prevented from pursuing their claims. While the decisions to stay the proceedings were taken in April 1998 and July 2000 respectively, the proceedings had been stayed de facto since enactment of the amendment in January 1996, since the court was unable to continue its examination of the cases thereafter. Having regard to the time which had elapse d since then, the impossibility of having the claims decided was not only temporary. A situation where a significant number of legal actions claiming large sums of money are lodged against a State may call for further regulation by the State, which enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in that respect, but such measures must be compatible with the requirements of Article 6. Given that the proceedings had been pending for over six years and no new legislation had been passed which would have enabled the ap plicants to have their claims determined, the degree of access afforded under national legislation was not sufficient to secure the applicants’ right to a court.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

The Court concluded unanimously that it was unnecessary t o examine separately the issue of the length of the proceedings, which was absorbed in the issue of access to a court.

Article 41: The Court made an award 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