CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 29835/13 Milka VORKAPIĆ against Croatia and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case 4.     During 1991 and 1992 Serbian paramilitary forces gained control of about one third of the territory of Croatia and proclaimed the so-called “Serbian Autonomous region of Krajina” ( Srpska autonomna oblast Krajina ). At the beginning of August 1995 the Croatian authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over the Krajina. The action was codenamed “Storm” and lasted from 4   to   7   August 1995. 2.     Killing of the applicants’ relatives and investigation into their deaths (a)     Application no. 29835/13 5.     The applicant’s son S.V. was killed on 6 August 1995 during the military action “Storm”. The investigation into his death commenced in May 2006. The last step taken was autopsy of his body on 27 October 2007. (b)     Application no. 768/15 6.     The applicants’ relatives, D.B. and M.B., were killed on 18 August 1995 in the village of Ićevo, Croatia. The investigation into their deaths commenced in August 1995. The investigation did not yield any result. It was therefore terminated in December 2001. (c)     Application no. 2549/15 7.     On 22 September 1991 M.Š., who was the applicants’ husband and father, respectively, was abducted in the village Blinjski Kut in the Sisak area. He was killed on 23 September 1991. The investigation into his death commenced in February 2003. The last step was taken in October 2010 when the police informed the State Attorney’s Office of the investigation into the abduction and killing. (d)     Application no. 12407/15 8.     In August 1995 the applicants’ father, J.M., was killed by three men dressed in camouflage uniforms. The investigation into his death commenced in November 2005. The last step was taken in January 2005 when the Ministry of Defence informed the police that the documents in their Archives did not contain any relevant information about the killing of J.M. (e)     Application no. 38383/15 9.     The applicants’ relative M.G. was killed in August 1995 during the military action “Storm”. The investigation into her death commenced in May 2006. The last step was taken in April 2011 when the remains of M.G. were identified. (f)     Application no. 38524/15 10.     The applicant’s father, M.B., was killed in 1995 in the village of Prisjeci, Croatia. In July 2006 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the State Attorney’s Office against unknown perpetrators, on charges of war crime against the civilian population and the investigation ensued. The last step was taken in September 2006 when the police interviewed witnesses. COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicants complained under Articles 2, 13, and 14 of the Convention about the lack of an effective investigation into the killing of their close relatives. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 12.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Articles   2, 13 and 14 of the Convention 13.     The applicants all complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of their close relatives and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The applicants in applications nos. 29835/13 and 12407/15 also claimed that their relatives had been killed because of their Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate into this aspect of the case. The applicants from application no. 12407/15 further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:   “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ...” 14.     In a number of cases against Croatia concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives, the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should have started doubting the effectiveness of investigation (see Bogdanović v.   Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Orić v. Croatia , no.   50203/12, 13   May 2014; Gojević-Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec)., no. 5676/13, 17   March 2015; Radičanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no.   75504/12; Grubić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015; Babić v.   Croatia (dec.), no. 74338/12, 24 November 2015; Lovrić and Others v.   Croatia (dec.), no. 57849/13, 12 January 2016; Ribić and Others (dec.), no.   21610/13, 12 January 2016; Savić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 32023/13, 12   January 2016; Opačić and Godić Croatia (dec.), no. 28882/13, 26   January 2016; and Ivančić and Dželajlija v. Croatia (dec.), no. 62916/13, 15 March 2016). 15.     Having regard to the principles established in these cases as well as to its findings on the facts thereof, the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints about the lack of effective investigation into the deaths of their close relatives have been lodged out of the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by   29835/13 10/04/2013 Milka VORKAPIĆ 02/05/1937 Inđija Croatian, Serbian   Luka ŠUŠAK   768/15 16/12/2014 Stevan BULAJA 02/01/1954 Beograd Croatian Jelka ATLAGIĆ 01/10/1948 Novi Sad Croatian Danica KUJUNDŽIĆ 12/01/1945 Ravni Topolovac Croatian Manda ŠORGIĆ 05/04/1946 Beograd Croatian Olga JELAČA 11/03/1951 Kistanje Croatian   Luka ŠUŠAK   2549/15 30/12/2014 Radmila ŠPOLJAR 20/03/1959 Blinjski Kut Croatian Svjetlana ŠPOLJAR 23/06/1981 Blinjski Kut Croatian     Luka ŠUŠAK   12407/15 06/03/2015 Nada KRALJ 30/05/1966 Krašić Croatian Veselka POVRŽENIĆ 12/12/1960 Jastrebarsko Croatian Gordana TUNIĆ 23/06/1963 Stara Pazova Croatian   Josip BRDAR   38383/15 31/07/2015 Grujo GOJSAVIĆ 28/06/1962 Beograd Croatian Stanislava ĆUKOVIĆ 10/09/1954 Beograd Croatian Slavka SAVANOVIĆ 15/11/1956 Beograd Croatian   Luka ŠUŠAK   38524/15 29/07/2015 Nedjeljka BRCKOVIĆ 12/05/1948 Vojnić Croatian   Luka ŠUŠAK