Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/9411.04-en-20060511/view/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 13:36:53
Document Index: 104728881

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 9411', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', 'in fine', '§ 3']

BRKICEVIC v. CROATIA
BRKICEVIC v. CROATIA About Project
Application no. 9411/04
by Mustafa BRKIČEVIĆ
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 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,
The applicant, Mr Mustafa Brkičević, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1945 and lives in Lukavica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Spiz, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
1. Civil proceedings
On 26 May 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the company T. in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for a work-related injury.
On 15 November 2000 the Municipal Court gave judgment finding for the applicant. It awarded him non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 85,000 Croatian kunas (HRK), pecuniary damages in the amount of HRK 3,000 and the litigation costs. The parties appealed.
On 25 February 2003 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first-instance judgment in its part concerning non-pecuniary damages. The judgment in that part became final and enforceable. At the same time the County Court quashed the judgment in the remaining part, i.e. the part concerning pecuniary damages and costs, and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, on 11 June 2003 the Municipal Court gave judgment and awarded the applicant pecuniary damages in the amount of HRK 1,860 and the litigation costs. The applicant appealed.
On 14 October 2003 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
Meanwhile, on 4 December 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the proceedings.
On 13 June 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible, since the County Court on 25 February 2003 had given its decision while the complaint had been pending before the Constitutional Court.
2. Enforcement proceedings
(a) Enforcement proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damages
On 28 August 2003 the applicant applied with the Zagreb Municipal Court for enforcement of the above judgment of 15 November 2000 in its part that became final.
On 18 September 2003 the court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) ordering attachment of the funds at the company’s bank accounts and their transfer to the applicant.
The writ has not been executed yet due to the lack of funds on the company’s accounts.
(b) Enforcement proceedings concerning pecuniary damages
On 13 November 2003 the applicant applied with the Zagreb Municipal Court for enforcement of the above judgment of 11 June 2003.
On 24 November 2003 the court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) ordering attachment of the funds at the company’s bank accounts and their transfer to the applicant.
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and the outcome of the proceedings.
2. The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings.
By letter of 9 February 2006 the applicant informed the Court that he accepted a proposal for a friendly settlement and waived any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of the present application.
On 23 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 5,200 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.
BRKIČEVIĆ v. CROATIA DECISION