SORSA A 27 OTHERS proti Chorvatsku

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9168/04
by Božena ŠORŠA and 27 others
against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs F. Tulkens,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 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 FACTS

The applicants are 28 Croatian nationals listed in the Appendix. They were represented before the Court by Ms Lj. Nogolica and Mr Z. Nogolica, lawyers practising in Zagreb. 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.

On various occasions during 1992 the applicants deposited certain amounts of money with a “financial-engineering” company Z. (“the company”). Not having been paid back the amounts deposited, on 29 March 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the company in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).

The court held several hearings in the period between 1995 and 21 November 1997. The next hearing was not held before 25 September 2002.

On 16 June 2003 the court gave judgment in the applicants’ favour, ordering the company to pay them the amounts sought. This judgment was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 6 August 2003.

On 11 September 2003 the company filed a belated appeal, seeking at the same time a procedural restitutio in integrum (povrat u prijašnje stanje). It appears that the proceedings following that appeal are still pending before the second instance court.

Meanwhile, on 8 January 2003 the applicants filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 12 December 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared their complaint inadmissible, because the Municipal Court had meanwhile adopted a judgment in their case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their length complaint.

THE LAW

On 10 March 2006 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the applicants waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.

By letter of 23 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the proposal for a friendly settlement and that the Government would pay jointly to the applicants 68,500 euros in full and final settlement of his claim under the Convention, 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
Registrar President

Appendix