Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49
January 2003
Blečić v. Croatia (dec.) - 59532/00
Decision 30.1.2003 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for home
Annulment of protected tenancy because of lengthy absence: admissible
Article 35
Article 35-3
Ratione temporis
Court decisions taken after entry into force of the Convention: admissible
The applicant is a Croatian citizen resident in Italy. In 1953, she and her husband were granted a specially protected tenancy on a flat in the town of Zadar. Following his death in 1999, she became the sole tenant. In July 1991, she travelled to visit her daughter in Rome. Shortly afterwards armed conflict broke out in Dalmatia. Zadar was subjected to heavy shelling and was without water and electricity for over one hundred days. In October 1991, the Croatian authorities terminated the applicant’s pension and medical insurance, as she was not, at that time, a Croatian citizen. In view of her age and poor health, the applicant decided to remain in Rome. In November 1991, a family occupied the applicant’s flat. In February 1992, the municipal authorities took proceedings against her to terminate her tenancy on the basis that she had been absent for more than six months without justification. The applicant relied on her lack of means and poor health as reasons for staying with her daughter. The Municipal Court found these reasons insufficient to justify her absence and terminated her tenancy. The County Court quashed this decision for failure to have regard to all the relevant facts and remitted it for rehearing. The Municipal Court again ruled against the applicant. This decision was overturned on appeal. The municipal authorities took the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the appellate decision in February 1996, finding that the applicant’s absence was unjustified. In November 1996, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint. In November 1999, the Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court had correctly applied the law to the facts established by the lower courts and that, therefore, the applicant’s constitutional rights had not been violated.
Admissible under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: While the Government had not raised the issue of the Court’s competence ratione temporis, the Court observed that the applicant’s tenancy was terminated by virtue of the decisions of the courts. Although part of the proceedings took place before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997), the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was directly decisive for the applicant’s Convention rights. The application was therefore compatible ratione temporis.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy