CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIRST SECTION Application no. 5096/12 Nada NIKOLIĆ against Croatia lodged on 9 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Nada Nikolić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Vukovar. She is represented before the Court by Mr   T.   Filaković, a lawyer practising in Osijek. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the case On 2 October 1991 the applicant’s husband, Lj.N. was apprehended by the members of the Croatian Army in Vukovar, Croatia. His body was found in the river Danube near Novi Sad in Serbia. The autopsy was carried out by the Department for Forensic Medicine of the Novi Sad Medical Faculty on 25 November 1991. It showed that his death had been caused by shooting from a firearm between two and four months prior to the autopsy. 2.     Criminal Investigation In 2005 an investigation was instigated by the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office. It is still pending. 3.     Civil proceedings On 25 November 2004 the applicant then brought a civil action against the State in the Vukovar Municipal Court, seeking compensation in connection with the death of her husband. The claim was dismissed on 18   September 2008 and this judgment was upheld by the Vukovar County Court and the Supreme Court on 21 April 2009 and 16 February 2011, respectively. The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired. The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 12   July 2011. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the criminal law mechanisms as applied in the case at issue have not met the standards of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. She further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she has no effective remedy in respect of her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention. Finally, she also complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the assessment of facts and interpretation of laws by the national courts as regards their civil action for damages.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms have been applied in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Does the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to submit two copies of all case files and other documents concerning the apprehension and killing of the applicant’s husband.