European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> RADOS AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - 45435/99 [2002] ECHR 566 (4 July 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/566.html
Cite as: [2002] ECHR 566

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

---

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF RADOŠ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

(Application no. 45435/99)

PARTIAL JUDGMENT

(Friendly settlement)

STRASBOURG

4 July 2002

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

In the case of Radoš and Others v. Croatia,

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

Mr C.L. ROZAKIS, President,

Mr G. BONELLO,

Mr P. LORENZEN,

Mrs N. VAJIć,

Mrs S. BOTOUCHAROVA,

Mr A. KOVLER,

Mr V. ZAGREBELSKY, judges,

and Mr E. FRIBERGH, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2002,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 45435/99) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Croatian citizens, Mr Zvonimir Radoš, Mr Goran Lajnert, Mr Dmitar Malešević, Mr Branko Jugović, Mr Stjepan Živković and Mr Gojko Mikecin (“the applicants”), on 23 December 1996.

2.  The applicants were represented by the second applicant Mr Goran Lajnert, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Lidija Lukina- Karajković.

3.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of a set of civil proceedings. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the length of these proceedings.

4.  The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

5.  By a decision of 23 October 2001 the Court declared the application partly admissible.

6.  On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section.

7.  On 30 October 2001, after an exchange of correspondence, the Registrar suggested to the parties that they should attempt to reach a friendly settlement within the meaning of Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

8.  On 11 and on 13 February 2002 the Government and Mr Gojko Mikecin respectively submitted formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

THE FACTS

9.  In 1992 Mr Gojko Mikecin (hereinafter “the applicant”) lent various sums of money to a number of companies for a high rate of interest (so-called financial engineering). As these companies failed to repay the loans, the applicant instituted three different sets of proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) for re-payment of his loans.

1.  Proceedings against company E. and its owner, S.D.

10.  On 6 May 1993 the applicant filed an action against E. and S.D.

11.  Several hearings were held in the case. Following a hearing on 7 November 2001, the court terminated the proceedings because neither party appeared.

2.  Proceedings against T.T.B. and its owner, T.B.

12.  On 16 June 1993 the applicant filed an action against T.T.B. and T.B.

13.  In 1994 a judgment by default was adopted. This judgment was subsequently set aside and the proceedings were resumed.

14.  At a hearing on 3 May 2000 the court terminated the proceedings because the applicant's counsel did not appear. The applicant appealed against that decision.

15.  After the appellate court quashed the first instance judgment on 28 August 2001, the proceedings are again pending before the court of first instance.

3.  Proceedings against T.I.A. and its owner I.A.

16.  On 16 June 1993 the applicant filed an action against company T.I.A. and its owner, I.A.

17.  On 9 February 1994 the Zagreb Municipal Court decided that it had no jurisdiction over the applicant's claim and consequently transferred the case to the Zabok Municipal Court.

18.  At the hearing on 28 February 2000 that court pronounced judgment in favour of the applicant. The judgment became final on 19 April 2000.

THE LAW

19.  On 11 February 2002 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Croatia offer to pay (...) EUR 3,500 to Mr Gojko Mikecin. [This sum should] cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The Government further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention.”

20.  On 13 February 2002 the Court received the following declaration signed by Mr Gojko Mikecin:

“I note that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, the Government of Croatia are prepared to pay me the following sum, covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs: EUR 3,500.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.

This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached.

I further undertake not to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the Convention after delivery of the Court's judgment.”

21.  The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the Government and Mr Gojko Mikecin (Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).

22.  Accordingly, the application in so far as it concerns Mr Gojko Mikecin should be struck out of the list.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

  Decides to strike the application in respect of Mr Gojko Mikecin out of the list;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2002, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Erik FRIBERGH Christos ROZAKIS

Registrar President

---