Text rozhodnutí
Datum rozhodnutí
Rozhodovací formace
Číslo stížnosti / sp. zn.




Application no. 28438/04
by Ljubica VULETIĆ
against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2004,

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 applicant, Ms Ljubica Vuletić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Petrinja. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.

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

The applicant, together with her husband V.V., is the owner of a house in Petrinja where she had lived until August 1995 when she left for Serbia.

In March 1996 the local authorities temporarily accommodated a certain J.A. – an internally displaced person from a nearby village – in the applicant’s house.

Following her return to Croatia, on 17 April 1998 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the local authorities seeking repossession of her property. The local authorities granted the request on 21 May 1998 and ordered J.A. to vacate the house. On 2 July 1998 the Ministry of Justice dismissed J.A.’s administrative appeal against that decision.

Since J.A. failed to leave the applicant’s house, on 25 January 2001 the local authorities brought a civil action against her in the Petrinja Municipal Court. On 28 February 2001 the Municipal Court dismissed their claim. It held that alternative accommodation for J.A. had not been secured, and that prior to providing her with a place to stay, the local authorities’ claim for eviction could not be upheld. The parties did not appeal.

On 24 July 2001 the applicant herself brought a civil action in the same court seeking J.A.’s eviction and damages for unauthorised use of her house. On 17 October 2001 the Municipal Court upheld the applicant’s claim in part. It ruled that the house should be returned to the applicant because the State had meanwhile renovated J.A.’s house in her village. However, the applicant’s accompanying claim for damages was denied as the court held that J.A. had been entitled to remain in the applicant’s house until provided with alternative accommodation. On 26 September 2002 the Petrinja County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 5 February 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed her constitutional complaint.

Meanwhile, on 9 October 2001 J.A. left the applicant’s house.


1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

2. She further complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about the prolonged inability to repossess her house (which she considers her home) and her personal belongings left therein, as well as to obtain compensation for the damage resulting thereof.


By letter of 15 September 2006 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay the applicant 8,000 euros in full and final settlement of the case, costs and expenses included.

On 19 September 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby she 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. 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
Registrar President