GRUBIĆ v. CROATIA and 7 other applications
Doc ref: 56094/12;74338/12;75187/12;80960/12;3430/13;32023/13;32036/13;38882/13 • ECHR ID: 001-142938
Document date: April 10, 2014
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
Communicated on 10 April 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no . 56094/12 Jovo GRUBIĆ against Croatia and 7 other applications (see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, 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 applicants ’ relatives
During the military action “Storm” or immediately after, in August 1995, the applicants ’ relatives were killed on the territory of “Krajina”.
3. Civil proceedings
On various dates the applicants all brought their civil actions against the State, seeking damages in connection with the death of their relatives 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 national courts dismissed the claims on the grounds that the applicants ’ relatives had been killed during the military action “Storm” and that therefore their killing was “war-related” damage. The national courts further found that the applicants had not proved that their relatives had been killed by members of the Croatian army.
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 applicants complain 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 their relatives and that the national authorities have not investigated possible ethnic motives for their killing as required under Article 14 of the Convention.
They further complain under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy as regards the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of their relatives.
They also complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that their right of access to a court was violated because their claims for damages were dismissed on the grounds that they did not prove that their relatives had been killed by members of the Croatian army or was not “war-related” damage. They claimed that they had no effective remedy in respect of their civil claims 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 cases 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 applicants ’ relatives 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 applicants have access to a court as regards their civil claims for damages?
4. Have the applicants at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their 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 applicants ’ relatives.
APPENDIX
File No
Case Name
Date of lodging
Name of Representative
Address of Representative
Introduced by
1
56094/12
GRUBIĆ v. Croatia
13/08/2012
L. Šušak
Gospodin Luka Å UÅ AK, odvjetnik
Iblerov trg 6/1
HR - 10000 Zagreb
CROATIE
J.Grubić
2
74338/12
BABIĆ v. Croatia
19/10/2012
H. Alajbeg
Zajednički odvjetnički ured Hrvoje ALAJBEG i Jakša TOMIĆ, odvjetnici
Gundulićeva 2
HR - 21000 Split
CROATIE
M.Babić
3
75187/12
ŽARKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. Croatia
12/11/2012
L. Šušak
Gospodin Luka Å UÅ AK, odvjetnik
Iblerov trg 6/1
HR - 10000 Zagreb
CROATIE
S.Žarković
M.Amanović
N.Grubor
4
80960/12
ZDJELAR AND OTHERS v. Croatia
11/12/2012
L. Šušak
Gospodin Luka Å UÅ AK, odvjetnik
Iblerov trg 6/1
HR - 10000 Zagreb
CROATIE
J.Zdjelar
B.Matkerić
M.Rebić Zdjelar
B.Zdjelar
Č.Zdjelar
D.Zdjelar
M.Zdjelar
M.Zdjelar
S.Zdjelar
5
3430/13
VUKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. Croatia
13/12/2012
L. Šušak
Gospodin Luka Å UÅ AK, odvjetnik
Iblerov trg 6/1
HR - 10000 Zagreb
CROATIE
R.Vuković
N.Burum Vidović
Z.Radić
R.Vidović
6
32023/13
SAVIĆ v. Croatia
17/04/2013
H. Alajbeg
Zajednički odvjetnički ured Hrvoje ALAJBEG i Jakša TOMIĆ, odvjetnici
Gundulićeva 2
HR - 21000 Split
CROATIE
M.Savić
P.Savic
7
32036/13
TRESKAVICA v. Croatia
18/04/2013
H. Alajbeg
Zajednički odvjetnički ured Hrvoje ALAJBEG i Jakša TOMIĆ, odvjetnici
Gundulićeva 2
HR - 21000 Split
CROATIE
D.Treskavica
N.Treskavica
V.Treskavica
8
38882/13
OPAČIĆ AND GODIĆ v. Croatia
31/05/2013
L. Šušak
Gospodin Luka Å UÅ AK, odvjetnik
Iblerov trg 6/1
HR - 10000 Zagreb
CROATIE
D.Opačić
M.Godic