FIRST SECTION

Application no. 50132/12 Miodrag MARIĆ against Croatia lodged on 31 July 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Miodrag Marić , is a Croatian national, who lives in Žrnovica . He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Marović , 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 7 August 2003 the applicant ’ s wife gave birth to a stillborn child in the Split Clinical Hospital Centre ( Klinički bolnički centar Split ; hereinafter: “the Hospital”). It appears that the applicant and his wife did not want to take the child ’ s corpse after the birth and therefore the Hospital assumed the responsibility for the body.

Soon afterwards the applicant started to inquire about the child ’ s burial place but he was unable to obtain any information. It appears that the criminal investigation was also opened into the matter.

On 2 June 2004 the applicant and his wife brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Splitu ) against the Hospital seeking non-pecuniary damages for the prolonged uncertainty about the burial place of their child.

On 6 April 2005 the Split Municipal Court dismissed the civil action on the grounds that after the applicant and his wife had declined to assume the responsibility for the body, the Hospital, acting under the relevant domestic law, had disposed the child ’ s body together with other clinical waste.

Against the first-instance judgment the applicant appealed to the Split County Court ( Županijski sud u Splitu ).

On 24 May 2007 the Split County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as ill-founded. It considered, however, that the first-instance court had erred in finding that the child ’ s body had been disposed of in accordance with the relevant domestic law, as such a method of disposal could only be used for a foetus in cases where the mother was pregnant up to twenty-two weeks and not in the event of a stillbirth. Therefore, the child ’ s body was supposed to be buried but there was no provision of the relevant domestic law which would oblige the hospital to inform the parents of the burial place.

The applicant further lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) but on 12 November 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed it endorsing the reasoning of the Split County Court.

Lastly, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 1 February 2012 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 27 February 2012.

COMPLAINT ITMarkFactsComplaintsEND

The applicant complains that he was unable to obtain the information about the burial place of his stillborn child.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family lif e , 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 requested to submit two copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.