FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2168/03 
by Danijela ČAVČIĆ 
against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President
 Mr P. Lorenzen
 Mrs N. Vajić
 Mrs S. Botoucharova
 Mr A. Kovler
 Mrs E. Steiner, 
 Mr K. Hajiyev, judges
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2002,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

 

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mrs Danijela Čavčić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Split. She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Štimac, a lawyer practising in Split.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1994 the applicant was bitten by a military dog. Subsequently, she instituted civil proceedings before the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) seeking compensation from the State. She based her claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.

On 9 April 1998 the Split Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant’s claim and awarding her damages. On the State’s appeal, the case was sent to the Split County Court.

On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima). It provided that all proceedings against the State concerning damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian Army and police when performing their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.

On 17 November 2000 the Split Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.

On 14 July 2003 Parliament adopted new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and the police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the enactment of the 1999 Amendments violated her right of access to a court.

THE LAW

By letter of 22 April 2005 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 6,000 euros in full and final settlement of the applicant’s claim under the Convention, costs and expenses included.

On 2 May 2005 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the applicant waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties (Article 39 of the Convention) and considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Christos Rozakis 
 Deputy Registrar President

ČAVČIĆ v. CROATIA DECISION


ČAVČIĆ v. CROATIA DECISION