Communicated on 10 April 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 5306/13 Duro DAMJANOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 8 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ɖ uro Damjanović , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Golubić . He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Šušak , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background to the case

In 1991 the Homeland war escalated in Croatia. A part of Croatia was occupied by separatist Serbian forces. On a part of the occupied territories the so called “Serbian Independent Region Krajina” (hereinafter “the Krajina”) was formed. During the summer of 1995 Croatian authorities announced a military action “Storm” with aim to regain control of “Krajina”. The action started on 5 August.

2. Killing of the applicant ’ s parents

On 6 August 1995 the applicant ’ s parents Du š an and Ɖ uka Damjanovi ć were killed in Radljevac , a village on the territory of “Krajina”.

3. Civil proceedings

On 28 December 2004 the applicant brought a civil action for damages against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court, seeking damages in connection with the death of his parents under the Act on liability of the Republic of Croatia for damage caused by members of the Croatian army and police when acting in their official capacity during the homeland war. The case was transferred to the Knin Municipal Court.

On 26 April 2007 the Knin Municipal Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that the applicant ’ s parents had been killed during the military action “Storm” in Radljevac when the Croatian army was stationed on that territory in order “to secure it”. Therefore, the killing of the applicant ’ s parents was damage “ directly connected with the state of war and linked to the war operations”. The Municipal Court further found that the applicant had not proved that his parents had been killed by members of the Croatian army.

This judgment was upheld by the Å ibenik County Court on 23 February 2009 and by the Supreme Court on 18 October 2011.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutiona l complaint was dismissed on 11 July 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Act on the liability of the Republic of Croatia for damage caused by members of the Croatian army and police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland war ( Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata , Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003) regulates the conditions under which the State is liable to pay compensation for damage caused by members of the army and the police during the Homeland War.

Section 2 provides for the State liability under general rules for liability only for damage that “does not have the character of war damage”.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention about the inefficiency of the criminal law mechanisms as regards the killing of his parents and that the national authorities have not investigated possible ethnic motives for their killing as required under Article 14 of the Convention.

He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy as regards the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of his parents.

He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that his right of access to a court was violated because his claim for damages was dismissed on the grounds that he did not prove that his parents had been killed by members of the Croatian army or was not “war-related” damage. He claimed that he had no effective remedy in respect of his civil claim for damages.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to investigate whether there was any motive behind killings of the applicant ’ s parents that might be related to their Serbian origin (see, mutatis mutandis , Å ečić v. Croatia , no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007 ‑ VI)?

3. Did the applicant have access to a court as regards his civil claim for damages?

4. Has the applicant at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all case files and other documents concerning the killing of the applicant ’ s parents.