FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6938/07
by Stojan URUKALO
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stojan Urukalo, is a Croatian national of Serbian origin who was born in 1933 and lives in Virovitica. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was the owner of business premises in Obrovac, a town located in the part of Croatia which was controlled by the occupying authorities from October 1991 until August 1995. Until October 1991 he let the premises to a certain Lj.V.
Following the military operation “Storm” in August 1995 by which Croatia regained control over almost its entire territory, Parliament passed the Temporary Takeover and Administration of Certain Property Act, which entered into force seven days later. It provided that property belonging to persons who had left Croatia after 17 October 1990 was to be sequestered, that is, taken over and administered by the State. It also authorised local authorities to temporarily accommodate other persons in such property.
On 30 July 1996 the local authorities issued a decision authorising a certain D.R. to use the applicant's property temporarily.
On 27 September 1997 the applicant applied to the local authorities seeking repossession of his property.
On 24 March 2000 the local authorities set aside its previous decision of 30 July 1996 and ordered D.R. to vacate the premises. Since D.R. failed to do so, on 12 December 2000 they brought a civil action for his eviction in the Obrovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Obrovcu). In March 2001 the court issued a default judgment in the plaintiff's favour.
In the ensuing enforcement proceedings D.R. was evicted and on 20 November 2001 the business premises were returned to the applicant.
Meanwhile, in 1999, the applicant brought a civil action against the local authorities in the Obrovac Municipal Court, seeking compensation for the use of his property in the period between August 1996 and August 2001. On 5 September 2001 the court ruled for the applicant in part.
Following an appeal by the respondent, on 2 July 2003 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) reversed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim in its entirety.
The applicant's subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 18 May 2006.
COMPLAINTS	
1. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that he had been unable to regain possession of his property for many years and that he had never received any compensation for its use. He claimed that this had been due to his Serbian origin.
2. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the above proceedings had been excessive and that the courts had been neither impartial nor independent as they had misapplied the domestic law to his detriment.
THE LAW
By letter of 18 July 2007 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 9 September 2007 the Government informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement whereby the Government would pay the applicant 6,800 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). In of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Søren 	Christos 
	Registrar	President