CCPR/C/112/D/2068/2011
2.6
On 28 July 2003, the author submitted a complaint before the Municipal Court in
Zagreb against both Croatia and Zagreb Bank, claiming to be a victim of torture and
discrimination.5 On 1 September 2003, the Municipal Court decided that the author should
correct or amend his application within a period of 30 days.6 On 19 February 2004, the
author made the corrections requested. On 19 May 2006, the Municipal Court rejected his
application stating that it was “unsuitable for discussion”. On 31 August 2006, the author
appealed that decision. On 12 February 2008, the County Court dismissed the decision of
the Municipal Court of 19 May 2006 and returned the case to the first instance court for reexamination.7 On 8 September 2009, the Municipal Court requested the author to correct
his application in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act within 30 days. On 10 December
2009, the author submitted his corrected application to the Municipal Court.
2.7
On 20 November 2009, the author filed a special constitutional complaint with the
Constitutional Court on the ground of the violation of his right to a hearing within a
reasonable time before the Municipal Court. On 30 December 2009, the Constitutional
Court rejected his complaint.8
2.8
On 17 June 2010, the Municipal Court in Zagreb re-opened proceedings and
requested the author to provide it with the name and address of his representative, given
that he lived abroad,9 and with proof that he had acted in accordance with article 83 of the
Law on Fundamental Rights at Work..
2.9
On 17 December 2010, the County Court in Zagreb found a violation of the author’s
right to a trial within a reasonable time, owing to the overall length of the proceedings in
the Municipal Court.10
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that “armed and police officers” used physical force to injure him
and force him to leave the country. Furthermore, he states that he was the victim of
repeated inspections, arrests and serious bodily injuries, in violation of his rights under
articles 7; 9, paragraph 1; and 17 of the Covenant. That claim is to be read in conjunction
with article 26 of the Covenant, owing to his ethnic origin.
3.2
The author asserts that, since he was unable to obtain any identification documents
between 22 August 1991 and 23 November 2001, he could not enter his own country, in
violation of his right under article 12, paragraph 4, of the Covenant.
3.3
The author further claims that that the proceedings before the Croatian courts were
not conducted within a reasonable time and no explanation was provided by the State party
to justify the overall length of the proceedings. He also invokes a violation of his
procedural rights, such as the fact that the court proceedings were not conducted by a
5
6
7
8
9
10
4
It seems that the complaint submitted against Zagreb Bank related to the author’s dismissal from his
job.
The author only received the decision on 6 February 2004.
The author only received the decision on 13 June 2008.
According to the letter of the Secretary of the Constitutional Court of 30 December 2009, the
complaint was rejected as inadmissible under the Constitutional Act of the Constitutional Court.
According to the Law on Courts of 29 December 2005, claims concerning protection of the right to
trial within a reasonable time should be submitted to a court which is directly superior to the one
where the case is pending at the moment of the complaint.
Article 146 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The County Court decision awarded the author compensation of 3,000 HRK (approximately 415
euros at the time) to be paid within three months, starting from the date of submission of his request
to the Ministry of Finance for payment of compensation.