CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 novembre 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 } .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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 73223/14 Milan IVANEŽA and others against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   November 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 application lodged on 17 November 2014, 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. They were represented before the Court by L. Šušak, a lawyer practicing in Zagreb. 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. 4.     On 17 November 1992 the applicants’ relative, B.I., was arrested by Croatian soldiers, and was taken to Zadar Military Prison. On 19 November 1992 he was found dead in his cell. 5.     The Croatian authorities opened an inquest into his death in 1992. The last steps were taken in 1993 when an expert in medicine drew additional report on autopsy. COMPLAINT 6.     The applicants complained under the procedural aspect of Article 2 that the investigation into the death of their relative had not been effective. THE LAW 7.     The applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate and adequate steps to investigate the death of their close relative and to bring the perpetrators to justice. They relied on 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. ...” 8.     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). 9.     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’ complaint about the lack of effective investigation into the deaths of their close relative has 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, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 15 December 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix         Milan IVANEŽA is a Croatian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Novi Sad.     Ružica GAGIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Požarevac.     Jovan IVANEŽA is a Croatian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Požarevac.     Veljko IVANEŽA is a Croatian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Belgrade.