CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 19 May 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51519/12 Jovan NIJEMČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 23 July 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Jovan Nijemčević, is a Croatian and a Canadian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Niagara Falls. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Budak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 December 1991 the applicant entered into his cottage house and found that it was robbed. The next day, on 27 December 1991, the applicant filed a criminal complaint in which he alleged that his house had been used by the members of the Croatian army in the period between the beginning of October 1991 and the middle of December 1991 and that it must have been robbed by them. In his criminal complaint the applicant requested pecuniary damage.   On 10 July 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the State before the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ), seeking compensation of damages. On 14 March 2003 the Slatina Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Slatini ) acting upon a request of the Zagreb Municipal Court submitted its case-file concerning the applicant’s criminal complaint, noting that the perpetrators had not been found and that therefore criminal proceedings had not been instituted. On 5 May 2006 the Municipal Zagreb Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action as unfounded. The applicant lodged an appeal and on 3 July 2007 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) quashed the first-instance judgement and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 31 March 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court again dismissed the applicant’s claim as statute-barred. It held that the applicant’s civil action had been brought after the expiry of the three-year time-limit, prescribed by section 376 § 1 of the Obligations Act. The applicant lodged an appeal and on 26 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court quashed again the Zagreb Municipal Court’s judgment and it ordered a fresh consideration of the case. It held that the applicant had not known who had caused the damage and therefore the time-limit for the applicant’s claim was five years, as prescribed under section 376 § 2 of the Obligations Act. On 28 January 2010 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as lodged out of the three-year statutory limitation period. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Zagreb County Court and on 1   March 2011 that court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment of 28 January 2010. It held that the applicant had known that the damage was caused by the members of the Croatian Army and therefore he had known that the State was liable for that damage. Therefore the time-limit for the applicant’s claim was three years, as prescribed under section 376 § 1 of the Obligations Act. The applicant than lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) which the Supreme Court dismissed as unfounded on 1 March 2011. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 13 June 2012 by the Constitutional Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decisions of the national courts finding his civil claim to be statute-barred were unfair and deprived him of his right of access to court.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to a court in respect of his civil action for damages allegedly caused by members of the Croatian army, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?