Communicated on 11 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 5864/12 Đuro KRESOVIĆ and others against Croatia lodged on 13 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 8 March 1996 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Biograd na moru Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Biogradu na moru ) seeking compensation of 2,090,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) for pecuniary damage for their house destroyed during the war in Croatia. They 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 It repealed section 180 and stayed all proceedings instituted on the basis of that provision, pending enactment of new legislation.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 applicants ’ proceedings were stayed ex lege on 4 December 2000, pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.

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 16 December 2003 the Municipal Court resumed proceedings instituted by the applicants, under the 2003 Liability Act.

On 11 August 2006 the Biograd na moru Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicants ’ claim and ordered them to reimburse the State the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 84,000.

The first instance judgment was upheld by the Zadar County Court ( Županijski sud u Zadru ) on 1 March 2007 and the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 4 December 2007.

The applicants ’ subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 13 October 2011.

On an unknown date the applicants reimbursed the State the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 60,000.

On an unknown date the applicants asked the Ministry of Justice for the reimbursement of HRK 60,000 which they had paid for the impugned costs of proceedings. They relied on Article 4 of the Government ’ s Decision on the writing off of claims for the costs of civil proceedings awarded to the Republic of Croatia in certain proceedings adopted on 28 May 2009. Under Article 4 of the impugned decision the Ministry of Justice was entrusted with the duty of collecting information on already paid costs of civil proceedings awarded to the Republic of Croatia in the judgments delivered after 31 July 2003 in proceedings instituted on the basis of former section 180 of the Obligations Act, and resumed on the basis of section 10 of the 2003 Liability Act, in which the plaintiffs ’ action was dismissed in application of section 8 of that Act and the plaintiffs were obliged to reimburse the costs of civil proceedings to the Republic of Croatia, and making proposals to the Government of Croatia regarding the method of their reimbursement.

On 19 April 2011 the Ministry of Justice replied that the Ministry of Justice was not authorised to control the courts ’ judgments and decisions.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the domestic courts unjustifiably ordered them to reimburse the State for the costs of the civil proceedings at issue .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ 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 them to reimburse the State for the costs of the proceedings?

Appendix