CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 mars 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s85A9FA18 { width:27.61pt; display:inline-block } .s37AEF3E3 { width:165.65pt; display:inline-block } .s761BCC3B { width:6.28pt; display:inline-block } .sD6B0D8D1 { width:194.68pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 29042/03 by Eugen LUKŠIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   March   2006 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   D. Spielmann ,   Mr   S.E. Jebens, judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 July 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Eugen Lukšić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1932 and lives in Zagreb, Croatia. He was represented before the Court by Mr   B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   Š. Stažnik. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Civil proceedings On 15 February 1991 the applicant brought a civil action against the insurance company C.O. with the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) seeking damages for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. On 7 July 1992 the applicant extended his action to include the insurance company A.O. and the car rental company P. On 14 April 1995 the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant’s claim in respect of company P. and dismissing it in respect of insurance companies C.O. and A.O. The applicant appealed. On 15 October 2002 the County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) quashed the first-instance judgment in its part concerning the company A.O. and remitted the case. Meanwhile, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 13 June 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible, since the County Court had given its decision while the complaint had been pending before the Constitutional Court. In the resumed proceedings, on 13 February 2004 the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant’s claim in part. The company A.O. appealed. The proceedings are currently pending before the County Court. 2.     Enforcement proceedings Since the above judgment of 14   April 1995 in its part against the company P. had not been appealed and thus had become final, on 1 August 1997 the applicant applied to the Zagreb Municipal Court for enforcement of that part of the judgment. On 31 March 2005 the Municipal Court discontinued the proceedings since the company P. had been wound up. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention about the length of the civil and the enforcement proceedings. 2.     The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of the length of the civil and the enforcement proceedings. THE LAW By his letter of 8 June 2005 the applicant informed the Court that he accepted a proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application. On 7 November 2005 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 4,800 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Santiago Quesada   Christos Rozakis   Deputy Registrar   President