CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA31CEDC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDAD452F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s19B7B205 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF JORGIĆ v. CROATIA   (Application no. 70446/01)                       JUDGMENT (Friendly settlement)     STRASBOURG   24   June   2004       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jorgić v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 3 June 2004, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 70446/01) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Croatian nationals, Mr Jovan Jorgić and Ms Milka Jorgić (“the applicants”), on 23 March 2001. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Lidija Lukina-Karajković. 3.     The applicants complained that the enactment of the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 violated their right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 4.     By a decision of 23 October 2003 the Court declared the applicants’ complaint admissible. 5.     In March 2004 the Government and the applicants submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. THE FACTS 6.     The applicants were born in 1937 and 1939, respectively, and live in Krušedol, Serbia and Montenegro. 7.     On an uncertain date the applicants’ weekend house in Lončarica, Croatia, was damaged by unknown perpetrators. 8.     On 27 October 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Grubišnom Polju ) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property. 9.     Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 ( Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 31   May   2000. 10.     Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija , Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 4 December 2003. THE LAW 11.     On 17 March 2004 the Court received the following declaration on the Government’s behalf: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Croatia offer to pay ex gratia EUR 8,500 to Mr Jovan Jorgić and Ms   Milka Jorgić. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, converted into the national currency on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the judgment by the Court pursuant to the Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.” 12.     On 24 March 2004 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants: “We note that the Government of Croatia are prepared to pay us ex gratia the sum of EUR   8,500 covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, converted into national currency on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and we have reached.We further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.” 13.     The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). 14.     Accordingly, the case should be struck out of its list of cases. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Decides to strike the case out of its list of cases;   2.     Takes note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber. Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 June 2004, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President