CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 mars 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sE78773ED { width:216.11pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION   DECISION Application no. 38216/06 by Slobodan ZAGRECKI against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6   March   2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 September 2006, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Slobodan Zagrecki, is a Croatian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Vukovar. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Babić, a lawyer practising in Vinkovci. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. During the war in Croatia the applicant was mobilised by the Yugoslav Peoples’ Army and soon wounded in his right leg. He stayed in Serbia until the end of 1996 when he returned to Croatia. Meanwhile, on 31 August 1992 an investigation was opened against the applicant and ten other persons on suspicion of having taken part in the armed rebellion in Croatia in 1991. The Osijek Court Martial also ordered the applicant’s detention. However, this order was not enforced. On 4 November 1997 the applicant entered the State service as a policeman in Vukovar. On 10 October 2001 the Vukovar County Court revoked the order of the applicant’s detention, but ordered that the applicant’s passport be withdrawn. On 11 October the same court decided to continue the investigation. On 21 May 2003 it terminated the investigation pursuant to the Act on General Amnesty. However, on 27 May 2003 the same court quashed its previous decision and decided to continue the investigation. On 28 April 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the return of his passport. The request was granted by the Vukovar County Court on 28 April 2006. However, upon the State Attorney’s appeal a three-judge panel of the same court ordered on 9 May 2006 that the applicant’s passport be withdrawn again. Following this order the Vukovar Police Station issued a decision on 17 May 2006 ordering the applicant to hand over his passport. The applicant complied on the same day. COMPLAINTS The applicant firstly complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the stress caused to him by the prolonged investigation and embarrassment which he suffered among his fellow policemen due to being suspected for having committed a very serious crime amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant complained as well under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the presumption of innocence was violated because his passport had been withdrawn. The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against because he was not of Croatian origin. Lastly, the applicant complained that the national authorities had withdrawn his passport pending a criminal investigation against him. As a consequence, from 10 October 2001 onwards, he had been unable to leave the country. THE LAW By letter dated 13 September 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 25   October 2007. By letter dated 27 November 2007, sent by registered post, both the applicant’s representative and the applicant were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 25   October 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Both the applicant and his representative received this letter on 3 December 2007. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President