CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 avril 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sBFD8E45 { width:185.97pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 3565/06 by Goran KRSTIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Giorgio Malinverni,   George Nicolaou, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 December 2005, 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Goran Krstić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Zagreb. He was represented before the Court by Mrs   I.   Bojić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In its decision of 29 May 1978 the Zagreb Municipal Court partially divested the applicant’s father of the capacity to act. The Zagreb Welfare Centre, Trešnjevka Office ( Centar za socijalnu skrb Zagreb, Ured Trešnjevka ) on 21 May 1996 assigned one of their employees as the father’s guardian. On 23 October 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) divested the applicant’s father of his capacity to act and on 1   December 2003 the Welfare Centre assigned the applicant as his father’s guardian. Meanwhile, on 8 June 2000 a civil action was brought before the Zagreb Municipal Court in the name of the applicant’s father. The action was lodged by an attorney engaged by the Welfare Centre. The proceedings concerned a request of the father to purchase under favourable conditions the flat on which he had hitherto had specially-protected tenancy. The first instance judgment of 21 February 2002, granting the claim, was reversed in a judgment of the Zagreb County Court’s ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) on 26   October 2004, on the ground that the action had been brought outside the prescribed time-limit. The appellate judgment was served on the attorney on 7 December 2004. On 9 December 2004 she sent a report to the Welfare Centre informing them about the judgment and its content. She sought further instructions. The Welfare Centre informed the applicant on 10 January 2005 about the judgment. On 10 February 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. However, on 25 May 2005 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared the complaint inadmissible as being out of time. It held that the appellate decision had been served on the attorney on 7 December 2004, while the constitutional complaint had been lodged on 10 February 2005, out of 30-day time-limit. On an unspecified date the applicant’s father and the Ministry of Defence, as the owner of the flat in question, entered a lease agreement under the “protected rent” regime, pursuant to the 1996 Leases Act. On an unspecified date the applicant sought the Welfare Centre to allow him to empower an attorney to lodge an application with the Court on his father’s behalf. In its decision of 12 July 2005 the Welfare Centre denied the request finding that the father’s rights were sufficiently protected by the lease agreement under the “protected rent” regime. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed on 3 October 2005 by the Ministry of Health and Social Care. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained that his father’s right of access to a court had been violated due to the late service of the Zagreb County Court’s judgment of 26 October 2004, so that his constitutional complaint had been dismissed as being lodged out of time. 2.     Furthermore, the Court communicated on its own motion a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention about the refusal of the social authorities to authorise the applicant to sign a power of attorney to a lawyer for representing his father before the Court; and a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the failure of the Zagreb Welfare Centre’s employee to file a civil action on behalf of the applicant’s father for purchasing the flat where he lived within the prescribed time-limit. THE LAW On 12 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, declare that the Government of Croatia offer to pay ex gratia 16,000 euros to Mr Goran Krstić with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable 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 notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 20 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Croatia are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 16,000 euros to Mr Goran Krstić with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into national currency at the rate applicable 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 notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” 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 and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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. André Wampach   Christos Rozakis Deputy Registrar   President