CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 septembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 45 August-September 2002 Ostojić v. Croatia (dec.) - 16837/02 Decision 26.9.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Impossibility of suing the State for damage to property allegedly caused by armed forces during war in Croatia: inadmissible The applicant is a Croatian citizen of Serbian origin, currently resident in Yugoslavia. In August 1995, he abandoned his home in Croatia because of military action by the Croatian army. The applicant claims that his property was subsequently destroyed by members of the Croatian army. He further claims that the authorities impeded him from returning to Croatia by not issuing Croatian identity documents until 1999. He finally re-entered the country in March 2000. In the intervening period, Parliament had amended the Civil Obligations Act twice. The first amendment, in 1996, stayed all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts (see Kutić v. Croatia , no. 48778/99, judgment of 1 March 2002, in which the Court found that this violated Article 6 § 1); the second amendment, in 1999, stayed all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from actions of members of the Croatian army or police personnel acting in their official capacity during the war in Croatia. The applicant complained that this deprived him of his right of access to a court. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The applicant had not instituted any proceedings, although he could have done prior to the entry into force of the 1999 amendment. Even if he was prevented from entering Croatia, he could either have engaged a third party to represent him or corresponded by mail with the Croatian authorities: manifestly ill-founded. Article 13:   The applicant was able to lodge an action for damages until 1999 but had failed to do so: manifestly ill-founded. Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14:   The events complained of took place prior to entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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