CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 }   Communicated on 22 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 78836/16 Bosiljka BURSAĆ and Others against Croatia lodged on 15 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the killing of the applicants’ close relative in 1995, allegedly by Croatian soldiers, which investigation is still pending. It also concerns a decision ordering the applicants to bear the costs of civil proceeding sin which they sought compensation in connection with the death of their relative. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     In respect of the costs that the applicants were ordered to pay to the State, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   3.     If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1?   4.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016) so that the following criteria were satisfied: (1)     that the State was represented by the State Attorney’s Office and the costs of the State’s representation were calculated in an amount equal to a lawyer’s fee; (2)     that the applicants’ claim before the national courts was not devoid of any substance or manifestly unreasonable; (3)     in the light of the applicants’ individual financial situation, that the order to bear the costs at issue was a significant financial burden on them?   APPENDIX         Bosiljka BURSAĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1940, lives in Apatin and is represented by L. Šušak     Nena DAMJANOVIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1953, lives in Gračac and is represented by L. Šušak     Đuka DAMJANOVIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1942, lives in Apatin and is represented by L. Šušak     Danica DUBAJIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1948, lives in Srb and is represented by L. Šušak     Milica VASILJEVIĆ is a Croatian national who was born in 1950, lives in Zagreb and is represented by L. Šušak