Communicated on 29 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 21899/13 Frane ŠARIĆ against Croatia lodged on 25 February 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Frane Šarić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Zadar . He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Vukorepa and Ms M. Blazevic , lawyers practising in Zagreb .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 13 April 1993 t he applicant ’ s house in Zadar was destroyed by a mine laid by unknown perpetrator.

On 7 March 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) seeking compensation for pecuniary damage for his house destroyed during the war in Croatia. He relied on section 180 of the Obligations Act, which provided that the State was liable for damage resulting from “acts of violence or terrorist acts”.

On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Obligations Act ( Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996 – “the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It repealed section 180 and stayed all proceedings instituted on the basis of that provision, pending enactment of new legislation.

Accordingly, the applicant ’ s proceedings were stayed ex lege on 8 June 1998 , pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.

On 9 August 1999 the applicant lodged a request for the reconstruction assistance for reconstructing the impugned house .

On 5 June 2003 the Zadar Region ’ s Administration Office ( Ured državne uprave u Zadarskoj županiji ) dismissed the applicant ’ s request. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision.

On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia no. 117/2003) of 23 July 2003 – “the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force. It provided that the State was liable in tort for damage caused by death, bodily injury or impairment of health resulting from terrorist acts, whilst damage to property was to be compensated through reconstruction assistance, obtainable before the competent administrative authorities, under the Reconstruction Act. The Act also provided that all proceedings stayed on the basis of the 1996 Amendment were to be resumed in accordance with its provisions.

Accordingly, on an unknown date the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed proceedings instituted by the applicant, under the 2003 Liability Act.

On 29 January 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant ’ s claim and order ing him to reimburse the State the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 28,600.

The first instance judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) on 27 September 2011 and the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 30 May 2012, except in the part on the costs of proceedings . The Supreme Court reversed that part and ordered the applicant to reimburse the costs of the State in the amount of HRK 23,320.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 17 January 2013 .

On 5 March 2012 the Zadar Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zadru ) requested the applicant to reimburse the State HRK 26,600 for the costs of the impugned proceedings.

On 12 April 2012 the applicant paid to the State HRK 26,600 on the account of the costs of proceedings.

On 16 April 2012 the Zadar Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zadru ) requested the applicant to reimburse the State further HRK 2,000 for the costs of the impugned proceedings given that they had mistakenly requested HRK 26,600 on 5 March 2012.

On 26 April 2012 the applicant paid to the State HRK 2,000.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the domestic courts unjustifiably ordered him to reimburse the State for the costs of th e civil proceedings at issue .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of possession, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered him to reimburse the State for the costs of the proceedings?