MAMUZIĆ A OSTATNÍ proti Chorvatsku

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MAMUZIĆ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

(Application no. 53358/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mamuzić and Others v. Croatia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Erik Wennerström, President
Davor Derenčinović,
Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 53358/21) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 October 2021 by five individuals, whose relevant details are set out in the appended table, (“the applicants”), who were represented by Ms S. Čanković, a lawyer practising in Zagreb;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the investigation into the applicants’ mother’s killing and the domestic courts’ decisions regarding costs of civil proceedings to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the decision of the Government of North Macedonia not to exercise their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The application concerns the investigation into the applicants’ mother’s killing, as well as the domestic courts’ decisions ordering the applicants to pay the costs of the State’s representation in the civil proceedings in which they sought damages in connection with the killing.

1. Investigation

2. The applicants’ mother, Lj.M., was killed on 29 August 1991 in a field by her house in Mala Vranovina near Topusko (Sisak area). On 5 November 1997 Croatia ratified the Convention.

3. The inquiry into the killing commenced in October 2006, when the applicants submitted a request for a friendly settlement of a civil dispute (see paragraph 17 below), in which they sought damages from the State stating that their mother had been killed by members of the Croatian armed and police forces.

4. In particular, in 2006 the Glina and Gvozd police interviewed the second applicant, five persons from Mala Vranovina, N.S. (Lj.M.’s grandson), and M.K. (former commander of the Topusko Police).

5. The second applicant submitted that he had been in Germany at the time, but that his brother (the fourth applicant) had told him that on 29 August 1991 their mother had left the house to tend for the cattle and that around 7.30 pm the first and fourth applicants (her sons who had stayed in the house with their father), had heard their mother’s cries and automatic weapon shots. They had run out of the house and seen 4-5 men, two of whom were in blue uniforms and the rest of them in camouflage uniforms. The men had started shooting in their direction and then ran into the nearby forest. The applicants’ mother had her throat slit and one arm cut off, most probably by the automatic weapon shots. Ž.V. living in Serbia had found a radio device and a camouflage hat with a Croatian emblem near the place where the killing had occurred.

During the police interview, the second applicant called the fourth applicant (living in Bosnia and Herzegovina), and the fourth applicant confirmed over the phone the second applicant’s statement.

6. The five persons once living in Mala Vranovina had not seen the killing; they had only heard gunshots. N.S. had no direct knowledge of the killing.

7. M.K. stated that in June 1991 the officers under his command in the Topusko Police had been heading out to “positions” towards the surrounding villages populated by ethnic Serbs, including Mala Vranovina. He could not remember which exact positions the members of his unit had held on 29 August 1991 but stated that on 28 August 1991 the Croatian villages in the Topusko area had been fired at from all sides. M.K. was certain that during that attack, and the following day, none of his officers had gone in the direction of Mala Vranovina since they had never been instructed to go there. He was not aware that any of them had gone there on their own initiative. He named seven commanders of other Croatian police and military units present in the Topusko and the surrounding area at the time.

8. In 2007 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office classified the applicants’ mother’s killing as a war crime against the civilian population.

9. In 2009 the Sisak County Court’s investigating judge questioned D.Ć. (living in Mala Vranovina) who stated that Mi.V. had told him that he had fired shots at the Croatian soldier who had killed Lj.M. and that afterwards a hat with a Croatian emblem, a radio device and bloody bandages had been found in the nearby forest.

10. In 2010 the Gvozd police interviewed D.Vi., who stated that one of the officers who had killed Lj.M. had allegedly been wounded by a son of S.V. The police then established that S.V. had two sons, D.Ve. and Mi.V.

11. On 18 October 2010 the Gvozd police made a note that Mala Vranovina was no longer inhabited and that the persons who had lived there during Lj.M.’s killing now lived at unknown addresses in Croatia or Serbia.

12. Between 18 October 2010 and 21 March 2023, no steps were taken in the investigation.

13. On 21 March 2023 the Gvozd police again interviewed N.S., who had no direct knowledge of the killing.

14. The investigation into the applicants’ mother’s killing is still pending.

15. Meanwhile, in 2012 two associations lodged a criminal complaint against F.G., a former Prime Minister of Croatia and President of the Crisis Command of the Republic of Croatia, who was alleged to have perpetrated, under command responsibility, the criminal offence of war crime against the civilian population.

16. In December 2015 the complaint was dismissed on the grounds that there was no indication that F.G. had planned or ordered the carrying out of any acts which could be classified as a war crime, or that he had known that war crimes had been committed in the Sisak area against people of Serbian ethnicity. As regards the applicants’ mother, who was listed as a victim in the criminal complaint together with more than 130 persons of Serbian ethnicity alleged to have been killed or suffered other harm during 1991 and 1992 in Sisak and other cities in Croatia, the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office noted that the investigation into her killing was pending, with no suspects being identified thus far.

2. Civil proceedings against the State

17. In August 2006 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the State, seeking damages for their mother’s killing.

18. Heard by the first-instance court, the fourth applicant stated that on 29 August 1991 he and the first applicant had run out of the house when they had heard their mother’s cries. They had seen a group of 6 men, two in blue uniforms and the rest in camouflage uniforms. One of the men had been kneeling over his mother and swinging his arm towards her while she was lying on the ground. The men had fired shots at him and his brother and then retreated to the forest. Someone had shot back at the men. The day after, Ž.V. had brought him a hat with a Croatian emblem and with “Rambo” written on its internal side, a camouflage vest and two radio devices; items found in the forest. The fourth applicant also submitted that the “Yugoslav militia” had carried out an inquiry into the event and that a doctor had examined his mother’s body.

M.M. (wife of the fourth applicant), and Ma.V. stated that all the items which had been found had been handed over to the “Krajina police” (M.M.), that is, the “Topusko militia” (Ma.V.).

19. The civil courts, including the Supreme Court, dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding that it had been lodged after the statutory time-limit had expired. The applicants were ordered to pay the State 66,300 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 8,840 euros (EUR)) in costs, comprising the fees chargeable for the State’s representation by the State Attorney’s Office.

20. In their constitutional complaint lodged on 7 April 2020 against the Supreme Court’s judgment, the applicants complained about the application of the statutory limitation period to their civil claim and the domestic courts’ decisions ordering them to pay for the State’s representation. They also complained, referring to, inter alia, Varnava and Others v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 145, ECHR 2009) and Jelić v. Croatia (no. 57856/11, 12 June 2014), that the State had failed to undertake measures capable of identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators of their mother’s killing, in breach of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

21. On 8 June 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint as unfounded. It held that the civil courts’ decision dismissing the claim as time-bared was in line with the domestic courts’ case‑law and could not be deemed arbitrary. It further held that “[it] does not find that the complainants’ right to an effective remedy was violated (Article 13 of the Convention), or that they were denied protection, in its procedural aspect, of the right to life ...”.

The decision was served on the applicants’ representative on 30 June 2021.

22. The applicants did not voluntarily pay the costs of the proceedings awarded to the State and the State never attempted to collected them by enforcement.

3. Complaints before the Court

23. The applicants complained that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the killing of their mother, in breach of Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. They further complained that the decisions concerning the costs of the civil proceedings violated their right of access to a court and was too burdensome for them.

4. Subsequent developments

24. On 28 December 2023 the Government of Croatia adopted a decision, which entered into force on the same day, writing off unpaid costs and reimbursing paid costs awarded to the State in civil proceedings in which parties sought compensation for the damage sustained during the war in Croatia. The competent State Attorney’s offices were instructed not to institute enforcement proceedings to collect such costs and to withdraw applications for enforcement in enforcement proceedings that had already been instituted.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 13 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION

25. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine the complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention alone (compare M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017, and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 51, 6 July 2017).

1. Admissibility

26. The Government argued that the applicants had not shown any interest in the investigation and that the complaint had thus been lodged outside the six-month time-limit.

27. They further submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in that they had brought their complaint for the first time before the Court. Relying on Marić v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 37333/17, 10 November 2020) and Pjevač and Others v. Croatia ((dec.) [Committee], nos. 31646/17 and 3207/19, 22 February 2022), they argued that since the investigation into their mother’s killing is still pending, after the Constitutional Court had dismissed their constitutional complaint on 8 June 2021, they should have lodged another constitutional complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation.

28. The applicants made no comment.

29. The Court considers that the issues of exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the complaint are closely linked to the substance of the complaint and must therefore be joined to its merits.

30. The Court notes that the complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

31. The Court notes at the outset that the Croatian authorities made significant efforts to prosecute war crimes committed during the war in Croatia (see Kušić and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 71667/17, § 105, 10 December 2019, and the cases cited therein) and that in 2019 a constitutional complaint became an effective domestic remedy for reviewing the effectiveness of investigations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the light of the principles developed by the Court (ibid., §§ 93 and 99).

32. The applicants brought their ineffective investigation complaint before the Constitutional Court in 2020 (see paragraph 20 above), thereby making use of this new remedy. The Constitutional Court examined their complaint on the merits and dismissed it, finding that the applicants had not been denied protection under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above, and contrast Marić and Pjevač, both cited above, where the Constitutional Court’s decisions had been given before a constitutional complaint became an effective remedy for such complaints).

33. The Court observes that the Constitutional Court’s finding in the applicants’ case was not preceded by any express analysis of the admissibility of the complaint (compare, mutatis mutandis, Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, §§ 117-18, 31 October 2019), or of the (in)actions in the particular investigation. The finding was based only on the documents available in the civil proceedings instituted by the applicants, without the Constitutional Court requesting the case file concerning the investigation into the killing. The Constitutional Court therefore did not have before it the documents on the basis of which it could have properly examined the matter (compare, for factual circumstances, Ćehić v. Croatia [Committee], no. 14043/19, § 34, 22 October 2024). It remained entirely unaware of the actions undertaken in the investigation.

34. Accordingly, in the circumstances where the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ complaint on the merits, without providing reasons for its finding, the Court is put in a situation in which, contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, it must conduct a first review of the investigation (see Kušić and Others, cited above, § 104).

35. The general principles concerning the effectiveness of a criminal investigation under Article 2 of the Convention have been summarised in Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey ([GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 172-81, 14 April 2015).

36. The Court notes that the killing of the applicants’ mother occurred during the war, on 29 August 1991, in the Sisak area. The authorities learned of her killing in 2006 and immediately opened an enquiry (see paragraph 3 above). The Court will therefore examine the effectiveness of the investigation as from that date.

37. The Court observes that the first and fourth applicants witnessed the killing but that they were never heard during the investigation (see paragraphs 4-13 above; the fourth applicant confirmed the second applicant’s account over the phone with the police, but was heard only in the civil proceedings, see paragraphs 5 and 18 above).

38. The Court further notes that the witness statements and the items allegedly found near the place of the killing suggested that the perpetrators were members of the Croatian armed and police forces (contrast Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 63, 12 January 2016). It would have thus been expected that the authorities verify which Croatian police and armed forces units had been near Mala Vranovina in August 1991 and interview their commanders and members. However, apart from hearing the former commander of the Topusko Police, who denied that any member of his unit had gone to Mala Vranovina on 29 August 1991, but who named seven commanders of other units present in the area at the time (see paragraph 7 above), the authorities failed to further pursue this matter (contrast Obajdin v. Croatia, no. 39468/13, § 50, 4 July 2017).

39. Moreover, as two persons stated that Mi.V. had injured one of the perpetrators (see paragraphs 9-10 above), the authorities could have verified whether any member of the Croatian police or army units in the area had been wounded or sought medical assistance on 29 August 1991 or in the following days.

40. Furthermore, given that in the civil proceedings several persons indicated that an inquiry into Lj.M.’s killing had been conducted by the authorities of the “Serbian Autonomous Region of Krajina”, and that the items found near the place of the killing had been handed over to those authorities (see paragraph 18 above), the Croatian authorities could have asked the Serbian authorities to assist them in the investigation by checking for any evidence regarding Lj.M.’s killing (see the Agreement on cooperation in respect of prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide concluded in 2006 between the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia and the State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia, referred to in Nježić and Štimac v. Croatia, no. 29823/13, § 43, 9 April 2015).

41. The Court reiterates that failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the investigation’s ability to establish the circumstances of the case and the identity of those responsible and that, where a suspicious death has been inflicted at the hands of a State agent, particularly stringent scrutiny must be applied by the relevant domestic authorities to the ensuing investigation (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 234, 30 March 2016).

42. The Court also notes that since October 2010 there has been almost no activity in the investigation into Lj.M.’s killing (see paragraphs 12-13 above).

43. Accordingly, the Court finds that in the present case there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention already in the period subject to the Constitutional Court’s scrutiny as a result of the lack of a thorough investigation.

44. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s non-exhaustion objection that the applicants should have lodged another constitutional complaint, which it previously joined to the merits (see paragraph 29 above, and compare Ćehić, cited above, § 36, and, mutatis mutandis, Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, § 28, 2 November 2006).

45. Furthermore, since the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint on the merits, and the applicants brought before the Court their complaint concerning the ineffective investigation within six months from receiving the Constitutional Court’s decision (see paragraph 21 above), the Court rejects the Government’s objection that the complaint was brought out of time, which it also previously joined to the merits (see paragraph 29 above).

46. In the present case there has accordingly been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

47. As concerns the applicants’ complaints that the decisions concerning the costs of the civil proceedings violated their right of access to a court and was too burdensome for them, the Court notes that the applicants never voluntarily paid the costs awarded to the State and that the State never collected them by enforcement (see paragraph 22 above). It further notes that, even though the domestic courts’ decisions ordering the applicants to pay the costs of proceedings to the State still obtain, after the Government of Croatia’s decision of 28 December 2023 writing off unpaid costs and reimbursing paid costs awarded to the State in civil proceedings concerning damage sustained during the war, the applicants no longer run any risk that they would have to pay those costs or that the State will seek enforcement of the costs orders (see paragraph 24 above and compare Milašinović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 26659/08, 28 June 2011).

48. It follows that the circumstances complained of by the applicants no longer obtain and that the effects of possible violations of the Convention and its Protocols on account of those circumstances have been redressed. Therefore, both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the matter has been resolved, have been met (see Vadalà v. Italy (dec.), no. 14656/15, §§ 29 and 36, 7 November 2023, and compare, for factually similar circumstances, Kalember and Others v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 319/19 and 2 others, 20 May 2025).

49. The matter giving rise to the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can thus be considered to have been “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. No reason relating to the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols requires the Court to continue the examination of this part of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

50. Accordingly, these complaints should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

51. The applicants claimed 66,300 Croatian kunas (HRK) in respect of pecuniary damage for the costs of the civil proceedings which they were ordered to pay to the State and 218,992.63 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage as compensation for the death of their mother. They also claimed EUR 17,965.69 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 3,415.80 for those incurred before the Court.

52. The Government contested those claims.

53. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages alleged; it therefore rejects these claims. It notes in particular that the applicants never paid the costs of the civil proceedings, and that part of the application is being struck out of the Court’s list of cases. Furthermore, the applicants did not seek non-pecuniary damage as compensation for the violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention (ineffective investigation) but as compensation for the death of their mother (substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention), which is not a complaint being examined in the present case.

54. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award 3,100 EUR covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as regards the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention;
2. Joins to the merits the Government’s objections regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation and dismisses them;
3. Declares the complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention;
5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 3,100 (three thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Erik Wennerström
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants: