CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 février 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFCD7D858 { margin-left:1.65pt; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s5BF1BAA7 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .s44CCECA1 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .s9B8DC3B3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s374119C8 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sC6AA1C4B { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2655D88E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .sB2C31DB { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .sBBC630BF { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .sAED66C1E { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .sBC32031A { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s91A1E95C { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .sACC1C168 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt; font-size:12pt } .s6FBC9AC3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2E6C0BD7 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } Resolution ResDH(2006)3 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kutić and eighteen other cases against Croatia (see Appendix I) relating to the lack of access to a court in civil proceedings stayed automatically by a provision of law and the excessive length of civil proceedings   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 February 2006, at the 955th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kutić and seventeen   other cases (see details in Appendix I) transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the cases originated in applications lodged against Croatia (see details in Appendix I) and that the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible the applicants' complaints relating to the lack of access to a court due to legislation of 1996 and 1999 staying all civil proceedings concerning claims for damages in respect of terrorist acts or caused by the members of the Croatian army or police in the context of the Homeland War in Croatia and, in the Čuljak and others case, the complaint relating to the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, including one set of proceedings stayed under the above-mentioned legislation;     Recalling that the European Court subsequently held in all these cases that there had been violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ right of access to a court and that, in the case of Čuljak and others, there had also been violations of that provision on account of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, and awarded them sums in just satisfaction (see Appendix I);     Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the European Court’s judgments, having regard to Croatia’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Having satisfied itself that the Government of Croatia paid all the applicants the sums awarded by the European Court as just satisfaction (see details in Appendix I);     Having noted the individual measures taken by the authorities to grant the applicants redress for the violations found ( restitutio in integrum ), in particular by accelerating as far as possible those proceedings which were still pending after the finding of violations by the Court (see details in Appendix II);   Whereas during the examination of these cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information about the measures taken to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgments which relate to the lack of access to a court (this information appears in the Appendix II to this resolution);   Having noted that general measures had already been taken by the respondent state to prevent new violations related to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see Final Resolution DH(2005)60 in the case of Horvat against Croatia), principally through the adoption on 14 July 2003 of an Act amending the Code of Civil Procedure, which aims particularly at strengthening procedural discipline and accelerating civil proceedings and by introducing an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (new Article 63 of the Constitutional Court Act, in force since 15 March 2002),     Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Croatia, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix I to Resolution ResDH(2006)3   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants     Cases Date of judgment Judgment final on Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Payment on Kutić Vojin and Kutić Ana 48778/99 01/03/2002 01/06/2002 10,000 euros - 15/07/2002 Multiplex 58112/00 10/07/2003 10/10/2003 4,000 euros 500 euros 27/11/2003 Aćimović Ljubomir 61237/00 09/10/2003 09/01/2004 4,000 euros - 02/02/2004 Crnojević Milan 71614/01 21/10/2004 30/03/2005 4,000 euros 2,000 euros 15/06/2005 Čuljak Gojko, Čuljak Branko and Mesoprodukt 58115/00 19/12/2002 19/03/2003 4,500 euros to the first and second applicants each 2,000 euros 17/04/2003 Dragičević Ljuban 11814/02 09/12/2004 09/03/2003 4,000 euros 400 euros 21/03/2005 Dragović Ranko and Dragović   Ružica 5705/02 28/10/2004 28/01/2005 4,000 euros to the first applicant and 5,000 euros to the second applicant - 24/03/2005 Freimann Anica 5266/02 24/06/2004 24/09/2004 - - - Kastelic Tomaž 60533/00 10/07/2003 10/10/2003 4,000 euros 2,000 euros 20/11/2003 Kljajić Mirko 22681/02 17/03/2005 17/06/2005 3,500 euros 500 euros 25/08/2005 Lulić Branka and Becker Martina 22857/02 24/03/2005 24/06/2005 8,000 euros jointly   - 29/08/2005 Marinković Mile and   Marinković Milena 9138/02 21/10/2004 21/01/2005 8,000 euros 500 euros 18/03/2005 Mihajlović Nevenka and Milorad 21752/02 07/07/2005 01/10/2005 7,000 euros 1,500 euros 18/11/2005   Cases Date of judgment Judgment final on Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Payment on Peić Ivan 16787/02 26/05/2005 26/08/2005 4,000 euros 500 euros 06/09/2005 Pikić Lazo 16552/02 18/01/2005 18/04/2005 4,000 euros - 09/05/2005 Urukalo Stojan and Nemet Verica 26886/02 28/04/2005 28/07/2005 8,000 euros jointly 500 euros jointly 16/06/2005 Varićak Marica 78008/01 21/10/2004 21/01/2005 4,000 euros 2,000 euros 21/03/2005 Zadro Nevenka 25410/02 26/05/2005 26/08/2005   1,000 euros 750 euros 16/11/2005 Zovanović Vinko 12877/02 09/12/2004 09/03/2005 4,000 euros 400 euros 21/03/2005     Appendix II to Resolution ResDH(2006)3   Information provided by the Government of Croatia during the examination by the Committee of Ministers of the Kutić case and eighteen other cases concerning the lack of access to a court in civil proceedings stayed automatically by a provision of law and the excessive length of civil proceedings     I. As regards individual measures   In all these cases the domestic proceedings stayed in accordance with the legislation of 1996 and 1999 have resumed pursuant to the law adopted on 14 July 2003 by the Croatian Parliament (see below).   Furthermore, on 16 October 2003, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution (No. Su-937-IV/03) instructing the competent courts to continue all civil proceedings stayed in accordance of the law of 1996 and 1999 ex officio , without a specific request from the parties. In addition, the President of the Supreme Court and presidents of all County Courts and Municipal Courts in Croatia were urged by the Ministry of Justice (letter of 22 April 2005) to display special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings concerning these cases, in order to speed them up and to erase, as far as possible, the consequences for the applicants of the violations found by the European Court.   As regards civil proceedings relating to the Čuljak and others case, which are still pending at national level, the competent court’s attention was drawn to the European Court's findings with a view to accelerating the proceedings as far as possible. The conduct of proceedings in this case is being supervised.     II. As regards general measures   1) Legislative measures providing for the resumption of the stayed proceedings   On 14 July 2003 the Croatian Parliament adopted the Act on the Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damage caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War and the Act on the Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damages resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Official Gazette No. 117 of 23 July 2003). These laws provided the resumption of civil proceedings which had been stayed in accordance with the law of 1996 and 1999.   2) Development in the Constitutional Court’s case-law creating a new domestic remedy for alleged violations of the right of access to a court   On 24   March 2004 the Constitutional Court gave a decision No.   U-III-829/2004 in the case of a person who had filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of certain proceedings and of lack of access to a court because his action in the domestic courts had been stayed by statute for an extended period.   In its decision, the Constitutional Court held that there had been a violation of the constitutional rights to a trial within a reasonable time and to access to a court. It ordered the court concerned to give a decision in the case within one year and awarded the plaintiff compensation.   Having regard to this development in the Constitutional Court’s case-law, the European Court has already accepted in the case of Pikić against Croatia (see details in Appendix I) that the complaint under Section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act may be considered an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning the lack of access to a court.   3) Publication and dissemination of the judgments   The judgment of the European Court in the case of Kutić was translated and published on the official Internet site of the government ( www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html ), in the Collected Papers of the Zagreb Law School (issue No. 2/2003) and in the journal The Informer (issue No. 5022/2002). Moreover, it has been sent out to the courts of the country. The judgment of the European Court in the case of Multiplex was published in the journal The Informer (issue No. 5176/2003). The judgment in the Aćimović case was published on the official Internet site of the government, on the Internet site of the Supreme Court ( www.vsrh.hr ) and in the journal The Informer (issue No.   5195/2003). A copy of the judgment has been sent to the courts directly concerned, to the Constitutional Court, to the Supreme Court, to the Parliament (various committees) and to the Legislation Committee of the government. Moreover, the President of the Supreme Court was asked to inform all judges of the content of the judgment.   III. Conclusion   The government believes that the measures taken make it possible first, to erase as far as possible the consequences of the violations found in the present cases and secondly, to prevent new, similar violations of the right to access to a court. The government therefore considers that Croatia has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention with regard to the present judgments.