Resolution ResDH(2006) 3

concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kutić and eighteen other cases against Croatia (see Appendix I)

relating to the lack of access to a court

in civil proceedings stayed automatically by a provision of law

and the excessive length of civil proceedings

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 February 2006 , at the 955th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kutić and seventeen other cases (see details in Appendix I) transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the cases originated in applications lodged against Croatia (see details in Appendix I) and that the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible the applicants' complaints relating to the lack of access to a court due to legislation of 1996 and 1999 staying all civil proceedings concerning claims for damages in respect of terrorist acts or caused by the members of the Croatia n army or police in the context of the Homeland War in Croatia and, in the ÄŒuljak and others case, the complaint relating to the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, including one set of proceedings stayed under the above-mentioned legislation;

Recalling that the European Court subsequently held in all these cases that there had been violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ right of access to a court and that, in the case of Čuljak and others, there had also been violations of that provision on account of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, and awarded them sums in just satisfaction (see Appendix I);

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the mea s ures which had been taken in consequence of the European Court ’s judgments, having regard to Croatia ’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by it;

Having satisfied itself that the Government of Croatia paid all the applicants the sums awarded by the European Court as just satisfaction (see details in Appendix I);

Having noted the individual measures taken by the authorities to grant the applicants redress for the violations found ( restitutio in integrum ), in particular by accelerating as far as possible those proceedings which were still pending after the finding of violations by the Court (see details in Appendix II);

Whereas during the examination of these cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgments which relate to the lack of access to a court (this information appears in the Appendix II to this resolution);

Having noted that general measures had already been taken by the respondent state to prevent new violations related to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see Final Resolution DH(2005)60 in the case of Horvat against Croatia ), principally through the adoption on 14 July 2003 of an Act amending the Code of Civil P rocedure, which aims particularly at strengthening procedural discipline and accelerating civil proceedings and by introducing an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (new Article 63 of the Constitutional Court Act, in force since 15 March 2002),

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Croatia , that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.

Appendix I to Resolution ResDH(2006)3

Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants

Cases

Date of judgment

Judgment final on

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

P ayment on

Kutić Vojin and Kutić Ana 48778/99

01/03/2002

01/06/2002

10,000 euros

-

15/07/2002

Multiplex

58112/00

10/07/2003

10/10/2003

4,000 euros

500 euros

27/11/2003

Aćimović Ljubomir

61237/00

09/10/2003

09/01/2004

4,000 euros

-

02/02/2004

Crnojević Milan

71614/01

21/10/2004

4,000 euros

2,000 euros

15/06/2005

ÄŒuljak Gojko, ÄŒuljak Branko and Mesoprodukt 58115/00

19/12/2002

19/03/2003

4,500 euros to the first and second applicants each

2,000 euros

17/04/2003

Dragičević Ljuban

11814/02

09/12/2004

09/03/2003

4,000 euros

400 euros

21/03/2005

Dragovi ć Ranko and Dragović  Ružica

5705/02

28/01/2005

4,000 euros to the first applicant and 5,000 euros to the second applicant

-

Freimann Anica

5266/02

24/06/2004

24/09/2004

-

-

-

Kastelic Tomaž

60533/00

10/07/2003

10/10/2003

4,000 euros

2,000 euros

20/11/2003

Kljajić Mirko

22681/02

17/03/2005

17/06/2005

3,500 euros

500 euros

Lulić Branka and Becker Martina

22857/02

24/03/2005

24/06/2005

8,000 euros jointly

-

Marinković Mile and Marinković Milena

9138/02

21/10/2004

21/01/2005

8,000 euros

500 euros

18/03/2005

Mihajlovi ć Nevenka and Milorad

21752/02

07/07/2005

01/10/2005

7,000 euros

18/11/2005

Cases

Date of judgment

Judgment final on

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

P ayment on

P eić Ivan

16787/02

26/08/2005

4,000 euros

500 euros

06/09/2005

P ikić Lazo

16552/02

18/01/2005

18/04/2005

4,000 euros

-

09/05/2005

Urukalo Stojan and Nemet Verica

26886/02

28/04/2005

28/07/2005

8,000 euros jointly

500 euros jointly

16/06/2005

Varićak Marica

78008/01

21/10/2004

21/01/2005

4,000 euros

2,000 euros

21/03/2005

Zadro Nevenka

25410/02

26/05/2005

26/08/2005

1,000 euros

750 euros

16/11/2005

Zovanović Vinko

12877/02

09/12/2004

09/03/2005

4,000 euros

400 euros

21/03/2005

Appendix II to Resolution ResDH(2006)3

Information provided by the Government of Croatia during the examination by the Committee of Ministers

of the Kutić case and eighteen other cases

concerning the lack of access to a court

in civil proceedings stayed automatically by a provision of law

and the excessive length of civil proceedings

I. As regards individual measures

In all these cases the domestic proceedings stayed in accordance with the legislation of 1996 and 1999 have resumed pursuant to the law adopted on 14 July 2003 by the Croatia n P arliament (see below).

Furthermore, on 16 October 2003 , the Supreme Court adopted a resolution (No. Su-937-IV/03) instructing the competent courts to continue all civil proceedings stayed in accordance of the law of 1996 and 1999 ex officio , without a specific request from the parties. In addition, the P resident of the Supreme Court and presidents of all County Courts and Municipal Courts in Croatia were urged by the Ministry of Justice (letter of 22 April 2005) to display special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings concerning these cases, in order to speed them up and to erase, as far as possible, the consequences for the applicants of the violations found by the European Court.

As regards civil proceedings relating to the Čuljak and others case, which are still pending at national level, the competent court’s attention was drawn to the European Court 's findings with a view to accelerating the proceedings as far as possible. The conduct of proceedings in this case is being supervised.

II. As regards general measures

1) Legislative measures providing for the resumption of the stayed proceedings

On 14 July 2003 the Croatia n P arliament adopted the Act on the Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damage caused by Members of the Croatia n Army and P olice during the Homeland War and the Act on the Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damages resulting from Terrorist Acts and P ublic Demonstrations (Official Gazette No. 117 of 23 July 2003). These laws provided the resumption of civil proceedings which had been stayed in accordance with the law of 1996 and 1999.

2) Development in the Constitutional Court ’s case-law c reating a new domestic remedy for alleged violations of the right of access to a court

On 24 March 2004 the Constitutional Court gave a decision No. U-III-829/2004 in the case of a person who had filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of certain proceedings and of lack of access to a court because his action in the domestic courts had been stayed by statute for an extended period.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court held that there had been a violation of the constitutional rights to a trial within a reasonable time and to access to a court. It ordered the court concerned to give a decision in the case within one year and awarded the plaintiff compensation.

Having regard to this development in the Constitutional Court’s case-law, the European Court has already accepted in the case of P iki ć against Croatia ( see details in Appendix I) that the complaint under Section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act may be considered an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning the lack of access to a court.

3) P ublication and dissemination of the judgments

The judgment of the European Court in the case of Kutić was translated and published on the official Internet site of the government ( www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html ), in the Collected P apers of the Zagreb Law School (issue No. 2/2003) and in the journal The Informer (issue No. 5022/2002). Moreover, it has been sent out to the courts of the country. The judgment of the European Court in the case of Multiplex was published in the journal The Informer (issue No. 5176/2003). The judgment in the Aćimović case was published on the official Internet site of the government, on the Internet site of the Supreme Court ( www.vsrh.hr ) and in the journal The Informer (issue No. 5195/2003). A copy of the judgment has been sent to the courts directly concerned, to the Constitutional Court , to the Supreme Court, to the P arliament (various committees) and to the Legislation Committee of the government. Moreover, the P resident of the Supreme Court was asked to inform all judges of the content of the judgment.

III. Conclusion

The government believes that the measures taken make it possible first, to erase as far as possible the consequences of the violations found in the present cases and secondly, to prevent new, similar violations of the right to access to a court. The government therefore considers that Croatia has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention with regard to the present judgments.