Application no. 29157/03
by Vesna TIŠLJAR
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 April 2006 as a Chamber composed of
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply the procedure under 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 applicant, Mrs Vesna Tišljar, is a Croatian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Zagreb. She was represented before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 April 1992 the applicant’s vehicle was taken by the police on the ground that it had been stolen.
On 6 August 1992 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the State and a certain J.B. seeking pecuniary damages.
On 4 February 1998 date the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant’s claim in respect of J.B.
On 23 January 2001 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed J.B.’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment which thereby became final.
On 8 May 2001 the applicant applied for enforcement of the above judgment seeking seizure of the J.B.’s movable property.
On 4 December 2001 the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Jastrebarskom) issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) by seizure of the debtor’s movables.
It appears that the writ has not been carried out yet.
Meanwhile, on 5 July 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the proceedings.
On 16 May 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible finding that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with complaints concerning cases in which a writ of execution had not been carried out.
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
2. She also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings.
By letter of 8 June 2005 the applicant informed the Court that she accepted a proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 13 January 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 3,000 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
TIŠLJAR v. CROATIA DECISION
TISLJAR v. CROATIA DECISION