CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 mars 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s8567D65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sC105DBEA { margin:0pt 28.35pt; font-size:11pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s8354CF86 { width:259.15pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 48771/99 by Petar DELIĆ against Croatia     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   M. Pellonpää, President ,   Mr   G. Ress,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, judges , and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 1 June 1999 and registered on 14 June 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicant is a Croatian citizen, living in Zagreb.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     During 1993 and at the beginning of 1994 the applicant lent various sums of money to a number of companies, including the following:     - on 15 October 1992 to “M.B.B.”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 5.000 for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 29 %;     - on 17 November 1992 to “T.T.B.”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 6.000 for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 30 %;     - on 2 December 1992 to “DETI”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 10.000 for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 30 %;     - on 3 December 1992 to “L.K.M.”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 10.000 for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 31 %; DEM 10.000 to “T.T.B.” at a rate of interest of 30 %; DEM 12.000 to “Anka Škrinjarić Marketing”, a company in Zagreb, for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 30 %; and DEM 10.000 to “T.M.T.”, a company in Zagreb, for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 31 %;     - on 5 December 1992 to “A.K.M.”, a company in Zagreb, 70.000 Austrian Shillings (ATS) for a period between 3 and 12 months at a rate of interest of 27 %; ATS 70.000 to “ERKO”, a company in Zagreb, for a period of 3 months with 30 % interest rate; and ATS 70.000 to “T.I.A .”, a company in Zagreb, for a period of 3 months at a rate of interest of 30 %;     - on 19 March 1993 to “Financijski Consulting Frize”, a company in Zagreb, DEM 14.500 and ATS 5.000 for a period of 6 months at a rate of interest of 5 %.     The applicant instituted the following proceedings with the Zagreb Municipal Court seeking repayment of the above mentioned loans:     - on 22 April 1993 against “L.K.M.” for DEM 10.000;     - on 8 June 1993 against “DETI” and “T.M.T.” for DEM 10.000 each;     - on 29 June 1993 against “A.K.M.” for ATS 70.000;     - on 10 October 1993 against “M.B.B.”and “Anka Škrinjarić Marketing” for DEM 5.000 and DEM12.000, respectively;     - on 12 October 1993 against “ERKO” and “T.I.A.” for ATS 70.000 each;     - on 15 October 1993 “T.T.B.” for DEM 16.000, and;     - on 28 October 1993 against “Financijski Consulting Frize” for ATS 70.000.     The Court has not yet reached any decision.   COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains about the length of the civil proceedings; prohibition of slavery and forced labour; right to an effective remedy and the protection of his property rights. He invokes Articles 6 § 1, 4 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   THE LAW   1.   The applicant firstly complains that the length of the proceedings that began on 22   April 1993; 8 June 1993; 29 June 1993; 10 October 1993; 12 October 1993; 15   October   1993 and 28 October 1993, respectively, has been excessive. In all those proceedings the Court of first instance has not yet reached any decision.     The applicant invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...)”     2.   The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention, that he has no remedy to accelerate the proceedings before the first instance Court.     The Court considers, having regard to all the information in its possession, that it cannot determine the admissibility of the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings before the Court of first instance, and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   3.   The applicant further complains under Article 4 of the Convention.     The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate such a complaint in any respect.     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 .   4.   The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.     The Court notes that the proceedings regarding the applicant's request for repayment of the loans are still pending before the Court of first instance. As they relate to the merits, the applicant's claims are premature and, therefore, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.         For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaints that the length of the proceedings before the first instance court exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he has in this respect been deprived of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention;   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.           Vincent Berger   Matti Pellonpää Registrar President