CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sA0390550 { width:31.21pt; display:inline-block } .s2F5FF95F { width:240.15pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 48778/99 by Vojin and Ana KUTIĆ against Croatia     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 July 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress, President ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo,   Mr   L. Caflisch,   Mr   J. Makarczyk,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   M. Pellonpää, judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 15 february 1999 and registered on 14 June 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicants are Croatian citizens, born in 1939 and 1942, respectively, and living in Bjelovar (Croatia).   A.   The circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.     On 26 December 1991 the applicant’s house in Martinec village (Croatia) was destroyed as the result of an explosion. On 29 November 1994 the applicants lodged an action for damages with the Zagreb Municipal Court. On 2 May 1995 that court held a hearing, but reached no decision.     On 13 November 1994 the applicants’ garage as well as the adjacent storage room and a meat curing-shed in Bjelovar were destroyed, also as a result of an explosion. On 14   December   1994 the applicants lodged an action for damages with the Zagreb Municipal Court. On 8   May 1995 that court held a hearing, but reached no decision.     On 17 January 1996 the Croatian parliament introduced a change of the Civil Procedure Act. That change of law provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts may not be sought.     Up to now the Croatian authorities have failed to enact any new legislation regulating that matter. The Zagreb Municipal Court has, however, not stayed the proceedings instituted by the applicants.     B.   Relevant domestic law     The relevant part of Article 180 of the Civil Obligations Act provides:     “(1) Responsibility for damages caused by death, bodily injury or by abstraction or destruction of another person’s property, when it results from violent acts or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations, lies with the authority whose officials were, according to the laws in effect, under a duty to prevent such damages.”     The relevant parts of the Act on changes of the Civil Obligations Act provides as follows:     “Article 1     Article 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (the Official Gazette No. 53/91, 73/91 and 3/94) is to be repealed.           Article 2     Proceedings for damages instituted pursuant to Article 180 of the Civil Obligations Act are to be stayed.     Proceedings from § 1 of this article will be continued after enactment of a special legislation that will regulate responsibility for damages resulting from the terrorist acts.”     The relevant part of Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows:     “Proceedings are to be stayed:     ...   6) when it is prescribed for by another Statute.”     COMPLAINTS     The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their right to property has been violated.     They further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings concerning their actions for damages.     The applicants also complain that they were prevented from using any remedy in those proceedings.     THE LAW   1.   The applicants firstly complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their right to property has been violated by the refusal of the Croatian authorities to decide their claims for damages.     The Court notes that the proceedings concerning the applicants’ actions for damages are still pending before the first instance court. Therefore, the application is premature and manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.   2.   The applicants further complain that the length of civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court, instituted on 29 November 1994 and 14 December 1994, respectively, has been excessive within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide as follows:   “   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by ... tribunal”         3.   The applicants further complain, without invoking any specific provision of the Convention, that they were prevented from using any remedy in the proceedings concerning their actions for damages. The Court considers that such a complaint may raise an issue of their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the allegations that the civil proceedings instituted by the applicants have been excessive and their right of access to a court and that 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.       For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants’ complaint that the length of the proceedings concerning the applicants’ actions for damages have been excessive and the complaint relating to their right of access to a court, both within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;     DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.             Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President     [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)