FIRST SECTION

Applications n os 67464/12 and 70462/12 Eva LUKIĆ and others against Croatia and Eva LUKIĆ against Croatia lodged on 10 October 2012 and 2 October 2012 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Background to the case

In 1991 the applicants ’ respective husband and father, K.L., was taken from his home in Borovo Naselje in Croatia by Croatian soldiers and killed.

On 26 June 1992 the Belgrade Military Court found one M.S., a Croatian soldier, guilty for war crimes against the civilian population which included, inter alia , the responsibility for the killing K.L., and sentenced him to death. This judgment was upheld by the Serbian Supreme Military Court on 29 December 1992 and thus became final.

2. Civil proceedings

On 5 March 2008 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Vukovar Municipal Court, seeking compensation in connection with the death of their relative. The claim was dismissed on 13 April 2010 and this judgment was upheld by the Vukovar County Court and the Supreme Court on 1 July 2010 and 12 October 2011, respectively. The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired. They also ordered the applicants to pay to the State the costs of the proceedings in the amount of 9,750 Croatian kuna (HRK).

The applicants ’ subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 16 May 2012.

3. Enforcement proceedings

The State authorities instituted the enforcement proceedings in the Vukovar Municipal Court against the first applicant, seeking the payment of the costs of the above–mentioned civil proceedings together with interest and the costs of the enforcement proceedings.

The enforcement order was issued on 19 April 2011 and one third of the first applicant ’ s pension was to be seized each month.

The first applicant lodged an appeal arguing that her pension amounted to HRK 1,200 and that by seizure of one third of that amount each amount she was put in a precarious position since it did not leave her with sufficient resources for subsistence.

The appeal was dismissed by the Vukovar County Court on 14 October 2011 and the first applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette nos. 53/1991, 73/1991, 3/1994, 7/1996, 112/1999), as then in force, read as follows:

Section 360

“(1) The right to claim fulfilment of an obligation shall cease when the statutory limitation period has expired.

(2) The statute of limitations [bars a right to claim] when the statutory prescribed period in which a creditor could have claimed fulfilment of an obligation has expired.

...”

Section 376

“(1) A claim for damages shall become statute-barred three years after the injured party learned about the damage and the identity of the person who caused it.

(2) In any event that claim shall become statute-barred five years after the damage occurred.

...”

Section 377

“(1) Where the damage was the result of a criminal offence and the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution is longer, the claim for damages against the person responsible becomes statute-barred at the same time as the criminal prosecution.

(2) The interruption of the statutory limitation period in respect of criminal prosecution entails the interruption of the statutory limitation period in respect of a claim for damages.

...”

Section 388

“The statutory limitation period is interrupted by the lodging of a civil action or any other action by a creditor against a debtor, before a court or other competent body, which is brought in order to secure or enforce the creditor ’ s claim.”

The relevant parts of the Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette no. 110/1997, 27/1998, 50/2000, 129/2000, 51/2001) provide:

Article 18

“(1) On account of the statute of limitations, the criminal legislation of the Republic of Croatia may not be applied after the period determined by this Code has elapsed. The period is calculated from the time the offence was committed, sentence was pronounced or another criminal sanction was ordered.

(2) The impossibility to apply the criminal legislation of the Republic of Croatia does not concern ... the war crimes ...”

Article 20

(1) The limitation period shall start to run from the date on which the offence was committed.

...

(3) The statutory limitation period shall be interrupted each time a procedural step is taken concerning the prosecution of the offence.

...

(5) The statutory limitation period shall start to run again after each interruption.

(6) Criminal prosecutions shall in all cases become time-barred after expiry of the double statutory limitation period .”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances of the killing of their close relative.

They further complain Under Article 14 of the Convention that their close relative was killed only because he was a Serb.

They also complain that the proceedings for compensation were unfair; that they had no access to a court; and that they did not obtain any compensation because their relative in respect of whose death they sought compensation was a Serb.

The first applicant complains that the ordering her to pay the costs of proceedings was unfair, places her in a precarious position and left her without sufficient resources for subsistence.

APPENDIX

NAME

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

Mila KOSANOVIĆ

06/02/1967

Croatian

Å id

Eva LUKIĆ

13/05/1948

Croatian

Vukovar

Zoran LUKIĆ

08/09/1971

Croatian

Futoga

Dubravka MIŠIĆ

05/12/1967

Croatian

Vukovar

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an effective investigation into the killing of the applicants ’ close relative, as required by the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicants have access to a court as regards their compensation complaint?

3. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the national courts answer the applicants ’ argument that there had been a final conviction for the killing of K.L. by a Serbian court?

4. Did the order that the applicants had to pay the costs of the civil proceedings at issue to the State violate their right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ?

5. Did the enforcement of the costs of the civil proceedings against the first applicant violate her right to respect for her private life or her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions?

The Government are invited to submit two copies of all case files and other documents concerning the killing of the applicants ’ close relative K.L.; as well as all case-files concerning the enforcement of the costs of the civil proceedings at issue against the first applicant.