CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 404 20.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1] Lelas v. Croatia (application no. 55555/08)     STATE’S REFUSAL TO PAY SPECIAL ALLOWANCES FOR DEMINING WORK UNLAWFUL   Unanimously   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The case concerned the disputed claim for special allowances for demining work carried out by a military serviceman. Twenty-eight similar applications against Croatia are pending before the Court.   The applicant, Čedo Lelas, is a Croatian national who lives in Vrlika. A serviceman employed by the Ministry of Defence, he occasionally participated in demining operations between 1996 and 1998. On the basis of a Decision by the Minister of Defence of September 1995 he was entitled to a special daily allowance for such work.   Since the allowances had not been paid to him, he brought a civil action against the State before the Municipal Court in May 2002. The State responded that his action was time ‑ barred because the three-year limitation period for employment-related claims under national labour law had expired. The applicant argued that on several occasions he had asked his commanding officer why the allowances had not been paid. After making enquiries with the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces through his superior, the commanding officer had informed the applicant that his claims were not in dispute and would be paid once the funds for that purpose would have been allocated. Relying on that information, the applicant argued that the State had acknowledged the debt and that the running of the statutory limitation period had thus been interrupted.   After hearing the applicant’s commanding officer and the head of the Split Regional Finance Department of the Ministry of Defence, whose testimonies confirmed that lists of the servicemen who carried out demining work had been submitted to the Ministry for payment and that their entitlement to the allowances had not been disputed, the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant in March 2003 and ordered the State to pay him the allowances.   On appeal, the County Court quashed the judgment in April 2003 and remitted the case. In June 2003 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant, holding in particular that the Central Finance Department of the Ministry of Defence had acknowledged the debt by not returning the lists of servicemen and the request for payment, and by informing the Regional Finance Department that payment would follow once funds would have been allocated.   In March 2004, the County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case, holding that in accordance with the internal regulations of the Ministry of Defence the person authorised to acknowledge the debt had been the head of its Finance Department before the court action was brought, and afterwards the head of the Legal Department. Therefore, the applicant’s commanding officer could not have acknowledged the debt on behalf of the Ministry. In April 2005, the Municipal Court for the third time ruled in favour of the applicant, holding that it did not follow from the evidence, in particular the internal regulations of the Ministry, that only the head of the Finance Department or Legal Department had been authorised to acknowledge the debt.   Following a new appeal by the State, in October 2005 the County Court reversed the first ‑ instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action, holding in particular that the debt had not been acknowledged by the authorised persons and that the request of the Split Regional Finance Department to transfer the necessary funds had been regarded as invalid by the Central Finance Department and had been returned for further examination. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the judgment in April 2008.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that the refusal of the domestic courts to grant his claims infringed his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in violation of in particular Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 November 2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis ( Greece), President, Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russian Federation), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou ( Cyprus), judges,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court was satisfied that the applicant’s claims had a sufficient legal basis to be regarded an asset protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Decision of the Minister of Defence of 1995 provided for a special daily allowance for the members of the Croatian Army carrying out demining work and it followed from the findings of the national courts that the applicant fulfilled all the conditions for acquiring the right to special daily allowances for such work set forth in that Decision. The refusal of the domestic courts to grant those claims accordingly constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   The Court underlined that any interference by a public authority with this right should be lawful. It took note of the Government’s argument that the refusal to grant the applicant’s claims was based on the relevant provision of the Labour Act, which provided that employment-related claims expired after three years. However, the application of that provision by the domestic courts had followed from their prior finding that the Ministry of Defence did not acknowledge the debt to the applicant – an action that would have otherwise interrupted the running of the statutory limitation period – as it had not been acknowledged by an authorised person in the Ministry. The domestic courts in their final judgment had not relied on any specific legal provision that would have supported the conclusion that the debt could have been acknowledged exclusively by the head of the Ministry’s Central Finance Department.   The principle of lawfulness required that an individual acting in good faith was entitled to rely on statements made by public officials who appeared to have the requisite authority to do so, unless it clearly followed from publicly accessible documents that an official lacked the authority to legally bind the State. It should not be incumbent on an individual to ensure that the state authorities were adhering to their own internal rules and procedures inaccessible to the public.   While sometimes the authority of a particular official to legally bind the State might be inferred from the nature of his or her office and required no explicit rule or provision, an individual had to be able to a reasonable degree to foresee the consequences which a given action might entail. In the present case, it had been established beyond doubt by the domestic courts that the applicant had been repeatedly informed by his commanding officer – who, as his immediate superior under the rules of the military hierarchy was the only person to whom he could have addressed his request – that his claims for daily allowances for demining work were not in dispute and would eventually be paid. In the absence of a clear legal provision as to who was authorised to acknowledge the debt on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, it was quite natural for the applicant to believe that the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces was an authority whose statements could be binding on the Ministry. The applicant could have reasonably believed that his commanding officer’s statements constituted an acknowledgement of the debt capable of interrupting the running of the statutory limitation period.   The interference with the applicant’s right to protection of his property had therefore not been lawful, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,250   euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .