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 } .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 } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 49706/99 by Rajko RAJAK 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 23 February 1999 and registered on 20 July 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicant is a Croatian citizen of Serbian origin,, born in 1933 and living in Zagreb, Croatia. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Zoran Novaković, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     In 1975 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Rijeka County Court seeking payment for technical improvements and rationalisation of the working process in “Brodograđevna industrija 3. Maj”, a public-owned company in Rijeka. In 1981 that Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction and consequently transferred the case to the Rijeka County Commercial Court. As that Court also denied its jurisdiction, a conflict of jurisdiction arose and the Supreme Court of Croatia transferred the case to the Rijeka Basic Court of Associated Work ( Osnovni sud udruženog rada ). When in 1990 all courts of associated work were abolished, the case was transferred to the Rijeka Municipal Court which has not yet reached any decision.   COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings regarding his request for payment has been excessive and that the court did not decide on the merits of his request, due to his Serbian origin. He further complains that since 1991 he has been attacked many times and that there have been seven attempts to kill him. He invokes Articles 6 § 1, 14, 3 and 5 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings regarding his request for payment have been pending before domestic courts since 1975. He further claims that the failure of the domestic court to decide on the merits of his request is due to his Serbian origin and invokes Article 14 of the Convention.     The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides:   “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...)”     Article 14 provides:   “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of those complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54 §   3   (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of those complaints to the respondent Government.   2.   The applicant further complains that since 1991 he has been attacked many times and that there have been seven attempts to kill him. He invokes Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.     The Court notes that the applicant does not specify any details of the events that he complains about.     It follows that this part of the application is not substantiated in any respect and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings and discrimination;     DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.               Vincent Berger   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President