CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sFFA10FE5 { width:88.66%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB2D717CA { width:8.74%; 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 } .s81073F69 { width:21.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s22723641 { width:17.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sECCB3843 { width:29.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDC1C35B1 { width:23.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7E79DAF4 { width:8.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s890C9132 { width:21.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s80CAFDAB { width:17.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5C361121 { width:29.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE0E4D903 { width:23.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 5 February 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25182/22 Dragutin NOVOSEL and Others against Croatia lodged on 13 May 2022 communicated on 17 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings for damages instituted by the applicants against a municipality and a public utility company following their relative’s drowning in an Olympic swimming pool in July 1996. The domestic courts found that the Olympic swimming pool was a dangerous object within the meaning of the Civil Obligations Act, rendering its owner objectively liable for any damage caused by it, unless the damage was caused exclusively by the victim’s behaviour which could not have been predicted or prevented. They further established that at the time of the incident there had been two guards at the pool who, however, had had no authority to survey the visitors or to remove them in case they were under the influence of alcohol. The rules prohibiting the entry to the swimming pool of such persons, and generally obliging the guards to survey and medically assist visitors, were put in place only after the incident. After two remittals, and twenty-four years of proceedings, the domestic courts concluded that the exclusive responsibility for the incident lay with the victim, who got himself in a state of severe poisoning by alcohol. The fact that at the time there was no surveillance or medical assistance in place at the pool was deemed irrelevant, since in any event the victim could not have been saved within two to three minutes, which was the time during which according to the experts he had probably drowned, owing to his being under severe influence of alcohol. The applicants complain, under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings lasted too long and that the domestic courts failed to examine a key element of the case in that they left without any consideration the causal link between their relative’s drowning and there being no legal framework in place prohibiting the entry to, and ensuring removal from the swimming pool of persons under severe influence of alcohol, in particular in the circumstances where the swimming pool bar served alcoholic drinks to visitors. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the manner in which the legal mechanisms were applied in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see   Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 67, 14 June 2011; Ilbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey , no. 19986/06, §§ 42-43, 10 April 2012; Bilbija et Blažević v. Croatia , no. 62870/13, § 110, 12 January 2016; Fergec v. Croatia , no. 68516/14, § 40, 9 May 2017 , and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 235-238, 19 December 2017 )?   2.     Does the length of the consideration of the applicants’ civil claim satisfy the requirement of “reasonable time” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?       APPENDIX Application no. 25182/22 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Dragutin NOVOSEL 1951 Croatian Krašić 2. Snježana DJOKIĆ 1984 Croatian Voćin 3. Dragica NOVOSEL 1958 Croatian Krašić 4. Maja NOVOSEL 1988 Croatian Krašić