CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 juin 2001

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s811DC823 { width:21.93pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0103C4 { width:23.23pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     482   28.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   FIRST COURT JUDGMENTS CONCERNING CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its first two judgments in respect of Croatia [1] :   SECTION 4   (1)     Truhli v. Croatia (no. 45424/99)           No violation Article 6 § 1   Nikola Truhli, a Croatian national and a former officer in the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA), received a military pension on his retirement in 1987. Following the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, his pension payments were first stopped and then re-assessed by the Croatian Social Security Fund at 63.22 % of the original amount as from October 1992.   He lodged two constitutional complaints. In the first, he claimed that the decisions of the administrative bodies and the Administrative Court to decrease the amount of his pension violated his constitutional rights. He alleged specifically that the decision was not based on legal grounds. In his second complaint, he challenged the constitutionality of the laws which served as a basis for the decrease in his pension. The Constitutional Court terminated the latter proceedings on the ground that new legislation had entered into force, stipulating that former YPA officers’ pensions were to be 63.22% of the amount received in December 1991. The applicant complained that the Constitutional Court’s decision violated his right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that Croatian law undoubtedly afforded the applicant the possibility of bringing judicial proceedings in order to settle his dispute and that he did so by lodging an application with the Administrative Court. He then had two options to pursue his case - by bringing a constitutional complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by the lower bodies’ decisions, or by bringing a constitutional claim challenging the constitutionality of the laws that had served as a basis for decisions decreasing his military pension. He used both.   The Court found that the applicant had had access to a court for the determination of his civil rights. The Constitutional Court had decided on the applicant’s individual constitutional complaint. In these circumstances the fact that the Constitutional Court had decided to terminate other proceedings, on the ground that the contested legislation was no longer in force, did not restrict the exercise of the applicant’s right of access to a court in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is only available in English.)   (2)     Rajak v. Croatia (no. 49706/99)                Violation Article 6 § 1   Rajko Rajak, a Croatian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings (25 years, of which a period of three years and seven months fell to be examined by the Court [2] ) he instituted, claiming payment for technical and other improvements in a publicly-owned company.   The Court did not find it established that the applicant had filed motions which could justify the length of the proceedings. The Court noted that the applicant had twice adjusted the amount of money sought, which might have delayed the proceedings at that stage, but that in other respects the applicant’s conduct could not in itself justify the protracted character of the proceedings.   As regards the conduct of the authorities, the Court noted that, in the period to be taken into account, the case lay dormant from 5 November 1997 until 18 May 1998 and then again from 18   May   1998 until 22 July 1999, which amounted to six months and 13 days and to one year, two months and four days, respectively. Although the court of first instance delivered judgment on 12 May 2000, it was quashed by the appellate court, and the case was again pending before the court of first instance.   The Court recalled that it was for Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts could guarantee the right to everyone to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time.     The Court considered that the proceedings in question, which were still pending, failed to satisfy the reasonable-time requirement. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article   6 §   1. (The judgment is only available 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. [2] The European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Croatia on 5 November 1997.