THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
No. U-IIIA-3138/2004
Zagreb, 9 March 2006
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, in the First Council for deciding on constitutional complaints, composed of Judge Željko Potočnjak,
President of the Council and Judges Ivan Matija, Agata Račan, Smiljko Sokol,
Nevenka Šernhorst and Milan Vuković, Council Members, deciding on the constitutional complaint of E.F. from K, represented by V.B. attorney in K, at its session of 9 March 2006 unanimously rendered the following
D E C I S I O N
I.
The constitutional complaint is hereby accepted.
II.
The Karlovac Municipal Court shall adjudicate in the case before it, No:
P386/04 (earlier P-922/87, P-607/93), within the shortest possible time, but not later than eight (8) months, counting from the first day after this decision is published in
Narodne novine .
III.
Pursuant to Art. 63 paragraph 3 of the Constitutional Act on the
Constitutional Court ( Narodne novine , Nos: 99/99, 29/02 and 49/02 – consolidated text), the applicant of the constitutional complaint E.F. from K, V.H.10, shall receive appropriate compensation of 13,100.00 kunas for the violation of the constitutional right in Art. 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Narodne novine , No. 41/01 – consolidated text).
IV.
The compensation in point III of this Decision shall be paid from the national budget within three months from the day when the applicant lodges a request for its payment with the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Croatia.
V.
This decision shall be published in Narodne novine .
S t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s
1.
The applicant, on 31 August 2004, lodged a constitutional complaint for the duration of civil proceedings on the grounds of Art. 63 of the Constitutional Act on the
Constitutional Court ( Narodne novine , Nos: 99/99, 29/02 and 49/02 – consolidated text; hereinafter: the Constitutional Act).

2
THE FACTS IMPORTANT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL-COURT PROCEEDINGS
2.
On 29 May 1997 the applicant filed a civil claim against the State of SFRY,
Army Post Office 5102 – Engineering School Centre, for compensation of damage he had suffered from a disease caused by a “jaundice antigen”.
On 20 December 1988 the Karlovac Municipal Court, in its judgement No. P-922/87-
24, rejected the applicant’s claim.
On 30 January 1990 the Karlovac District Court, in its judgement No. GŽ-584/98-2, rejected the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the first instance judgement.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, in its ruling No. Rev-2239/1990-2 of
20 October 1992, quashed the judgements of the Karlovac District Court and the
Karlovac Municipal Court, and, on 30 April 1993, returned the case back to the first instance court for retrial.
At a hearing on 11 May 2000 the applicant indicated the Republic of Croatia, the legal successor of the SFRY, as the respondent in this legal matter and proposed that the claim should be delivered to the Public Prosecutions of the Republic of
Croatia for its opinion and inclusion in the proceedings.
On 25 May 2000 the Public Prosecutions informed the Court that the Republic of
Croatia objects to the modification of the claim in this legal matter, and that all requirements are met for the proceedings to be stayed.
At a hearing on 24 September 2002 the Court ruled to stay the proceedings in this legal matter pursuant to Art. 84b of the Civil Obligations Act.
On 18 November 2002 the applicant proposed that the court resumes the proceedings.
On 3 January 2003 the Court refused the applicant’s proposal for the continuation of proceedings in its ruling No. P-607/93-48.
The applicant appealed against the stated ruling on 16 January 2003, and the file was referred to the Karlovac County Court on 10 February 2003.
On 18 February 2004 the Karlovac County Court, in its ruling No. Gž-331/03-2, quashed the ruling of the Karlovac Municipal Court and on 24 February 2004 returned the file to this Court for a retrial.
On 12 May 2004 the applicant asked the Court to speed up the proceedings.
On 21 June 2004 the Court ruled to resume the stayed proceedings.
At a hearing on 12 October 2004 the applicant proposed that the Court orders a medical expertise.

3
The hearing scheduled for 3 November 2004 was adjourned because the judge was prevented from attending.
At a hearing on 2 December 2004 the applicant was heard and the Court decided to carry out a medical expertise.
The expert supplied the Court with his findings and opinion on 7 January 2005.
At a hearing on 31 May 2005 the main hearing was concluded.
A hearing scheduled for 13 June 2005, where the judgement should have been passed, was adjourned due to the judge’s illness.
The applicant asked the Court on two occasions to speed up the proceedings, i.e., 19
October 2005 and 5 January 2006.
The file has been in the Office of the President of the Court since 24 February 2006.
3.
THE LAW IMPORTANT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
3.1.
On 29 June 1987 the applicant brought a suit before the Karlovac Municipal
Court against the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for compensation of damage.
The relevant parts of the Act on Amendments of the Civil Obligations Act, Narodne novine No. 112/99, that entered into force on 4 November 1999, stipulate:
Article 1
In the Civil Obligations Act (Narodne novine Nos: 53/91, 73/91, 3/94 and 7/96) after Art. 184 the new Articles 184a and 184b shall be added, which shall read:
...
The responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for damage that occurred in the former SFRY for which the SFRY was liable in the former SFRY shall be stayed.
Article 184b
(1) Proceedings instituted against the Republic of Croatia for damage incurred
(2) The proceedings in item 1 of this Article shall be resumed after a special regulation is passed regulating the responsibility for damage incurred in the former
SFRY for which the SFRY was liable.
Article 2
The Government of the Republic of Croatia shall submit the special legislation in Art. 1 (Art. 184a paragraph 2 and 184b paragraph 2) of this Act, and Art. 2 paragraph 2 of the Act on the Act on Amendments of the Civil Obligations Act
(Narodne novine No. 7/96) at the latest within six months from the day when this Ace enters into force.
3.2.
The Croatian Parliament, at its sitting on 14 July 2003, passed the Act on the
Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damage Incurred in the Former SFRY for which the SFRY was liable ( Narodne novine No. 117/03), which entered into force on
31 July 2003. The Act stipulates:

4
Article 1
(1) The Republic of Croatia as one of the successors of the former SFRY shall be liable for damage incurred in the former SFRY, for which, according to the legislation then in force, the former SFRY was held liable, if it can reasonably and justifiably be concluded from all the circumstances of the specific case, in particular from citizenship, residence, permanent residence or the seat of the injured party and the perpetrator, the scene of the damage and the effects of the damage, the manner of causing the damage and other circumstances dealt out in their entirety, that it is the
Republic of Croatia and not other legal successors of the former SFRY, who is in the closest relation to the specific damage.
Article 5
Court proceedings against the Republic of Croatia for compensation of damage incurred in the former SFRY, which were stayed pursuant to the Civil
Obligations (Amendments) Act ( Narodne novine No. 112/99), shall be resumed when this Act enters into force.
3.3.
The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on the grounds of Art. 63 of the Constitutional Act, for violation of the right to have a court decision passed in a reasonable time, guaranteed in Art. 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
The provision of Art. 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia provides:
Everyone shall have the right to the independent and fair trial provided by law which shall, within a reasonable term, decide upon his rights and obligations (...).
The provisions of Art. 63 of the Constitutional Act provide:
(1) The Constitutional Court shall initiate proceedings in response to a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when the court of justice did not decide within a reasonable time about the rights and obligations of the party (...).
(2) If the decision is passed to accept the constitutional complaint for not deciding in a reasonable time in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Constitutional Court shall determine a deadline for the competent court of justice within which that court shall pass the act meritoriously deciding about the applicant's rights and obligations
(...). Such deadline for passing the act shall begin to run on the day following the date when the Constitutional Court decision is published in the Official Gazette Narodne novine .
(3) In the decision in paragraph 2 of this Article, the Constitutional Court shall determine appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his/her constitutional right committed by the court of justice by not deciding within a reasonable time about his/her rights and obligations (...). The compensation shall be paid from the state budget within a term of three months from the date when the applicant lodged a request for its payment.
The constitutional complaint is well founded.
4.
The Constitutional Court substantiates its decision with the following findings:
4.1.
DURATION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT

5
The first instance proceedings started on 29 May 1987 when the applicant filed a suit with the Karlovac Municipal Court for compensation of damage.
However, the duration of proceedings is taken into account not from that date but from 5 November 1997 when the Ratification Act of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Protocols Nos. 1,4,7,11,12 and 13
Thereto ( Narodne novine – Međunarodni ugovori /International Agreements/, Nos.
18/97, 6/99 - consolidated text, 8/99
– correction, 14/02; hereinafter: Act on
Ratification of the Convention) entered into force. This Convention guarantees in Art.
1, among other things, also the right to a trial in a reasonable time.
The constitutional complaint was lodged on 31 August 2004, by which date the proceedings had not become final, so the Constitutional Court finds that that by the day when the constitutional complaint was lodged proceedings had lasted for a total of seventeen (17) years and three (3) months, and from the entry into force of the Act on Ratification of the Convention, to the day when the constitutional complaint was lodged, the proceedings had lasted for a total of six (6) years, nine (9) months and twenty-five (25) days.
4.2.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMPETENT COURT
In accordance with Art. 117 paragraph 3 of the Constitution, courts administer justice according to the Constitution and law.
When deciding to stay the proceedings the Karlovac Municipal Court ruled in accordance with the Act on Amendments of the Civil Obligations Act, and its ruling to stay proceedings was declaratory in meaning.
The stay of proceedings until a new regulation is passed, provided for by the aforementioned act, precluded the competent court from undertaking, while proceedings were stayed, any activities in connection with the claim submitted and passing any judgment about that claim.
4.3.
HOW STAY OF PROCEEDINGS, GROUNDED ON LAW, AFFECT THE
VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
In this legal matter the Constitutional Court assesses whether there are requirements to act in accordance with Art. 63 paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Act due to the statutory stayed proceedings, and whether this discontinuation violated the applicant’s right to the independent and fair trial provided by law which shall in a reasonable time decide upon his rights and obligations as guaranteed in Art. 29 of the Constitution.
Regarding the requirement to act in accordance with Art. 63 paragraph 1 of the
Constitutional Act in the case of statutorily stayed proceedings, the Court finds that such a discontinuation can violate the right to a trial in a reasonable time guaranteed in Art. 29 of the Constitution. Namely, during statutory discontinuation the court is prevented from acting, and if this interval is unjustifiably long-lasting it can violate the right to a trial in a reasonable time. Although the court is not responsible for not being able to decide in a reasonable time, which is the result of an intervention by the

6 legislator in a lawsuit that had already started, such an intervention can violate the right to a trial in a reasonable time. Therefore, the requirements to act in response to a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted, in accordance with the provisions of Art. 63 paragraph 1, have been met.
Concerning the issue related to the violation of the right to a trial in a reasonable time, the Court finds that the dissolution of the former SFRY caused a legal vacancy in respect to responsibilities of the new states related to the responsibilities of the former state. That justified the additional legal regulation of this responsibility, and even staying the proceedings already started until the new legislation is passed.
However, this statutory stay of proceedings should not have by its duration prevented the realisation of the right to a trial in a reasonable time guaranteed in the
Constitution.
Taking account of all the circumstances and of the fact that the statutory stay of the proceedings for compensation of damage for which the former SFRY had earlier been liable lasted for one (1) year, four (4) months and twenty four (24) days, the
Constitutional Court finds that this statutory stay of proceedings violated the right of access to court, as a part of the right to a court trial guaranteed in the provision of Art.
29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution on the fundamental human right to a fair trial. This statutory stay of proceedings and the overall duration of the proceedings before the
Karlovac Municipal Court have in this case also violated the applicant’s right to an independent and fair trial provided by law which shall, within a reasonable time, decide upon his rights and obligations, guaranteed in Art. 29 paragraph 1 of the
Constitution.
5.
Bearing in mind all the above facts and circumstances, the Court has ruled as in point I of the dictum of this decision, pursuant to the provision of Art. 63 paragraph
2 of the Constitutional Act.
6.
Pursuant to Art. 63 paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Act, the Court has decided as in points III and IV of the dictum of this decision.
As a rule, the Constitutional Court takes into account the legally relevant time period when determining the amount of the compensation for violation of the constitutional right to a judgement in a reasonable time, with the exceptional possibility of also taking into account unreasonably long periods of complete judicial inactivity even before November 1997, which depends on the special circumstances of each individual case.
7.
The publication of this decision (point V of the dictum) is grounded on the provision of Art. 29 of the Constitutional Act.
8. The president of the Karlovac Municipal Court shall deliver to the
Constitutional Court information in writing about the dates when it passed judgment and dispatched each decision within a term of eight (8) days from its dispatch, and no later than eight (8) days from the expiry of the term laid down in point II of the dictum of this decision.

7
This order is grounded on Art. 31 paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Constitutional Act.
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Jasna Omejec, LLD, m. p.