Communicated on 31 May 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 68879/14 Nedeljko ĆOSIĆ against Croatia lodged on 17 October 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nedeljko Ćosić , is a Swiss national who was born in 1960 and lives in Winterthur. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Štimac , a lawyer practising in Split.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 1 May 1992 the applicant ’ s father M. Ć . was taken to Split Hospital in connection with a broken left shinbone. He was placed in a surgical ward. On 3 May 1992 the doctors decided to amputate his leg, which he refused. He was then taken to Lora Military Prison. After that he disappeared.

On 5 May 2009 the applicant wrote to the Split County State Attorney ’ s Office, enquiring about his father. On 15 October 2009 the State Attorney ’ s Office replied that it had no information.

On 25 March 2014 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against unidentified people with the Split County State Attorney ’ s Office. He asked that the doctors and other medical personnel who had had contact with his father in May 1992 at Split Hospital be interviewed in order to establish where his father had been sent after being in that hospital.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that no effective investigation into the disappearance of his father has been carried out.

He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he has not been informed about his father ’ s burial place.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Has the applicant complied with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards the six-month time-limit? In particular, has he brought his complaints before this Court with due expedition having regard to the lapse of time since the alleged events (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08 , §§262-269, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection for the right to life, was the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms were applied by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

The Government are invited to submit all relevant information concerning investigation into the disappearance of the applicant ’ s father as well as copies of all files in that respect.