CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juillet 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121 July 2009 Katić v. Serbia (dec.) - 13920/04 Decision 7.7.2009 [Section II] Article 37 Failure to comply with terms of friendly settlement:   case restored to the list   The applicants, who were mentally disabled, were deprived of their legal capacity and a guardian was appointed to look after their interests. Before the Court, they complained about the length of civil proceedings against an insurance company that had been pending since 1987. The applicants subsequently accepted a friendly settlement offer made by the Government and on 4 March 2008 the Court struck the case out of its list. On 30 April 2008 the Government, as specified in the friendly settlement, paid EUR   6,000 to a bank account opened on behalf of the applicants, and the competent social-care centre appointed an interim guardian to manage the sum. By November 2008 only some EUR 400 of the awarded amount had been spent for the applicants’ subsistence. Consequently, they continued to live in very difficult conditions, with a leaking roof, inadequate electrical installations and no functioning home appliances. In view of their legal status, the applicants could not independently access their money and the interim guardian appointed to them was an employee, and under the direct supervision, of the social care centre. The respondent Government had timely transferred the settlement sum to the applicants’ account and, in different circumstances, that would have generally satisfied the terms of a friendly settlement. However, given the applicants’ disability and legal status, the fact that by November 2008 only EUR 400 had been spent for their subsistence, and that their housing situation remained difficult, indicated that the interim guardian and/or the centre had failed to make sure that the settlement sum was being used in the applicants’ best interests: case restored to the list .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes