Published on 6 February 2023

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 16440/21 and 53358/21 Anđa ARULA and Jadranka BJEDOV against Croatia and Miloš MAMUZIĆ and Others against Croatia lodged on 17 March and 25 October 2021 respectively communicated on 18 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the killing of the applicants’ family members in 1991 and 1995 respectively. In the constitutional complaints they lodged against the decisions given by the domestic courts in civil proceedings for damages, the applicants complained with reference to Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that the investigation into the killing of their family members had been ineffective. However, the Constitutional Court did not examine their complaints. The Constitutional Court’s decisions in the applicants’ cases were delivered in September 2020 and June 2021 respectively, which is after a constitutional complaint became an effective remedy for such complaints (see Kušić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 71667/17, §§ 93 and 99, 10 December 2019, and Marić v. Croatia (dec)., no. 37333/17, § 41, 10 November 2020).

Application no. 53358/21 further concerns the domestic courts’ decisions ordering the applicants to pay the costs of the State’s representation in the civil proceedings in which they sought damages in connection with the killing of their family member.

Before the Court the applicants in both applications complain, relying on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention, that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the killing of their family members.

The applicants in case no. 53358/21 further complain, without relying on any Article of the Convention, that the decision concerning the costs of proceedings violated their right of access to a court and was too burdensome for them.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the domestic authorities carried out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ family members, as required by the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (see Jelić v. Croatia , no. 57856/11, §§ 72-95, 12 June 2014; B. and Others v. Croatia , no. 71593/11, §§ 56-74, 18 June 2015, and M. and Others v. Croatia , no. 50175/12, §§ 66-89, 2 May 2017)?

2. Have they complied with their procedural obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to investigate whether there was any motive behind the killing of the applicants’ family members that might be related to their Serbian ethnic origin (see, mutatis mutandis, Šečić v. Croatia , no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007‑VI and the case cited therein)?

3. Have the decisions concerning the costs of proceedings in application no. 53358/21 violated the applicants’ right of access to a court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and/or their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, §§ 81-123, 6 September 2016, and Bursać and Others v. Croatia , no. 78836/16, §§ 67-106, 28 April 2022)?

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Nationality

Represented by

1.

16440/21

Arula and Bjedov v. Croatia

17/03/2021

Anđa ARULA 1970 Croatian

Jadranka BJEDOV

1964Croatian

Slađana ČANKOVIĆ

2.

53358/21

Mamuzić and Others v. Croatia

25/10/2021

Miloš MAMUZIĆ 1955 Croatian

Živko MAMUZIĆ

1960Croatian

Ranko MAMUZIĆ

1947Croatian and citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia

Danica SAMARDŽIJA

1949Croatian

Dragan MAMUZIĆ

1951Croatian

Slađana ČANKOVIĆ