CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 mars 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s8A024B48 { width:70.77pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   113   1.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Kutić v. Croatia (application no. 48778/99)     Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, both Croatian nationals, are Vojin Kutić and Ana Kutić. The case concerns their compensation claims, lodged with Zagreb Municipal Court, following various explosions which destroyed their property - their house in Martinec village (Croatia), on 26 December 1991, and, their garage and the adjacent storage room and a meat-curing shed in Bjelovar, on 13 November 1994. The court stayed both sets of proceedings, in accordance with an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act introduced on 17 January 1996 by the Croatian Parliament.   The amendment provides that all proceedings concerning actions for damage resulting from terrorist acts be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.     It appears that several constitutional claims have been lodged, challenging the legislation - although not by the applicants - but that the Constitutional Court has not yet reached a decision.   The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had no access to a court, in so far as they were prevented from having their civil claims for damages decided, due to the amended legislation in question. They also complained about the length of the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged that a situation where a significant number of claims for damages had been lodged against a State might call for some further regulation. However, in the present case, although the proceedings had so far been stayed for over six years, more than four of which had been after the Convention entered into force in Croatia, no new legislation had been passed to enable the applicants to have their civil claims determined. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in respect of the applicants’ right of access to court. It also held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article   6 § 1 in respect of the length of the proceedings. The applicants were awarded 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.) ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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.