003-6912923-9284953

WyrokETPCz2021-01-21

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy odmowa wznowienia postępowania cywilnego o odszkodowanie, pomimo pojawienia się nowego dowodu w postaci prawomocnego wyroku skazującego w sprawie karnej dotyczącej tych samych zdarzeń, naruszyła prawo do rzetelnego procesu i dostępu do sądu z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji, uznając, że odmowa wznowienia postępowania cywilnego o odszkodowanie, pomimo pojawienia się nowego i istotnego dowodu w postaci wyroku skazującego w sprawie karnej dotyczącej zaginięcia synów skarżącej, stanowiła odmowę dostępu do sądu. Skarżąca została pozbawiona możliwości dochodzenia swoich roszczeń odszkodowawczych w świetle nowych okoliczności.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżąca, Stoja Trivkanovi (zmarła w 2019 r., sprawę kontynuowali jej wnukowie), była obywatelką Chorwacji, której synowie i były mąż zostali zatrzymani w 199ali w 1991 roku; były mąż zginął, a synowie nigdy się nie odnaleźli. W 2006 roku wniosła pozew cywilny o odszkodowanie przeciwko państwu, który został odrzucony jako przedawniony. Po skazaniu w 2011 roku osoby odpowiedzialnej za zbrodnie wojenne, w tym zaginięcie jej synów, skarżąca próbowała wznowić postępowanie cywilne, ale jej wniosek został oddalony przez sądy krajowe, a skarga konstytucyjna uznana za niedopuszczalną.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Stwierdza naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji. Zasądza zadośćuczynienie.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 026 (2021) 21.01.2021 Judgments and decisions of 21 January 2021 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 23 judgments1 and 85 decisions2: one Chamber judgment is summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for five other Chamber judgments in the cases of Dubovtsev and Others v. Ukraine (application no. 21429/14 and nine other applications), Kadura and Smaliy v. Ukraine (nos. 42753/14 and 43860/14), Lutsenko and Verbytskyy v. Ukraine (nos. 12482/14 and 39800/14), Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 15367/14 and 13 other applications), and Vorontsov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 58925/14 and four other applications); 17 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and the 85 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release. The judgment summarised below is available only in English. Trivkanovi v. Croatia (no. 2) (application no. 54916/16) The applicant, Stoja Trivkanovi, was a Croatian national who was born in 1950 and lived in Sisak (Croatia). The applicant died on 15 December 2019. Her grandsons continued the application in her stead. The case concerned a refusal to reopen civil proceedings despite new evidence having emerged. On 25 August 1991 the Sisak police entered the applicant's son's house and seized him, her other son and her ex-husband. Her ex-husband was found shot dead in the River Sava; her sons were never seen again. On 21 November 2005 they were declared legally dead. The applicant brought a civil action for damages against the State in 2006. It was rejected as time-barred, as the domestic court found that longer time-limits could only apply where a criminal court found an offence had been committed. On 16 December 2011 a man was accused of being the leader of a unit that had committed crimes against the civilian population, including the applicant's sons, and was indicted for war crimes. He was found guilty by the courts and given a prison sentence. Relying on that conviction, the applicant applied for the reopening of the civil proceedings on 1 August 2014. The Sisak Municipal Court dismissed her application, holding that the man in question had been convicted for the applicant's sons' disappearance, not deaths, a decision that was upheld on appeal. A constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that she had been denied fair access to a court. 1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment's delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. 2 Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final. Violation of Article 6 � 1 Just satisfaction: to the applicant's grandsons jointly: 12,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_CEDH. Press contacts During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via [email protected]. Tracey Turner-Tretz Denis Lambert Inci Ertekin Neil Connolly The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2