FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21372/15
Jadranka CIGANOVIĆ and Petar CIGANOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants, Ms Jadranka Ciganović and Mr Petar Ciganović, are Croatian nationals who live in Stolberg (Germany). They were represented before the Court by Mr D. Jovanić, an advocate practising in Rijeka.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicants, who are of Serbian origin, were the owners of a summer house in Tribunj, Croatia. In the 1990s they left Croatia in fear for their personal safety.
5. On 14 March 2003 a certain Mr R.A. forged a contract of sale for the applicants’ house and recorded his ownership in the land register.
6. On 7 April 2003 R.A. concluded a loan agreement with a certain Mr T.P. and conditionally transferred the ownership of the house in question to him as collateral until the loan was repaid (so-called fiduciary transfer of ownership). On 20 June 2003, based on that fiduciary transfer, T.P. became the owner of the house and recorded his ownership in the land register.
7. On 30 June 2003 T.P. concluded a sale contract with a certain V.C. and sold him the house. On the basis of that contract, V.C. recorded his ownership of the house in the land register.
8. After learning about the above-mentioned contracts and changes in the land register, the applicants on 7 July 2006 lodged a criminal complaint against R.A. for forgery, and on 12 July 2006 instituted civil proceedings against the persons involved in the above-mentioned transactions (see paragraphs 5-7 above) with a view to having their ownership of the house restored.
9. On 9 March 2009 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) found R.A. guilty of forging the contract of sale of 14 March 2003 in respect of the applicants’ house (see paragraph 5 above) and another related criminal offence, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. That judgment was eventually reversed by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), which on 29 October 2010 sentenced R.A. to one year and two months’ imprisonment after finding him guilty only of the second offence, as the prosecution for the criminal offence of forgery had in the meantime become time-barred.
10. In their civil action of 12 July 2006 brought in the Velika Gorica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici) against R.A., V.C. and T.P., the applicants sought to have the above-mentioned contracts (see paragraphs 5-7 above) declared null and void and to be restored as the owners of the house in the land register.
11. By a judgment of 26 November 2009 the Municipal Court declared all the impugned contracts (see paragraphs 5-7 above) null and void and ordered the land registry to restore the applicants as the owners of the house in the land register.
12. On 23 June 2010 V.C. died and his heirs took over the proceedings in his stead. On 21 December 2010 they lodged an appeal against the first‑instance judgment (see paragraph 11 above). They argued that V.C. had lawfully acquired ownership of the house, relying on the principle of the accuracy of the information in the land register. He had bought the house in good faith and had not had any reason to believe that the information in the land register was incorrect.
13. By a judgment of 17 October 2012 the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici) reversed the first-instance judgment in so far as it concerned the sale contract of 30 June 2003 between T.P. and V.C. (see paragraphs 7 and 11 above). It dismissed the applicants’ claim in that regard (see paragraph 10 above) as it held that the contract in question was not null and void but non-existent. The County Court also quashed the first‑instance judgment in the part concerning the restoration of the applicants’ ownership of the house and remitted that part of the case to the first-instance court. It held that the first-instance court had not examined whether in the given circumstances V.C. had acquired ownership of the house by relying on the principle of the accuracy of the information in the land register.
14. An appeal on points of law and a constitutional complaint by the applicants against the County Court’s judgment were both declared inadmissible.
15. In the fresh proceedings before the Velika Gorica Municipal Court the applicants amended their action in the part concerning the sale contract between T.P. and V.C. (see paragraphs 7 and 10 above) and sought to have it declared non-existent.
16. By a judgment of 1 April 2016 the Municipal Court declared the contract non-existent but dismissed the applicants’ further claim to be restored as the owners of the house in the land register (see paragraph 10 above). It held that V.C. had bought the house in good faith and had thus acquired ownership of it by relying on the principle of accuracy of the information in the land register, which at the relevant time had indicated T.P. as its owner. The applicants appealed.
17. On 1 March 2017 the Velika Gorica County Court allowed the appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment of 1 April 2016 (see paragraph 16 above) and remitted the case to the first-instance court. It held that the first-instance court had not assessed certain evidence which called into question V.C.’s good faith.
18. In the fresh proceedings, by a judgment of 31 January 2019 the Velika Gorica Municipal Court again dismissed the applicants’ claim to be restored as the owners of the house in the land register (see paragraph 10 above). It again held that V.C. had bought the house in good faith and had acquired ownership of it by relying on the principle of the accuracy of the information in the land register. The applicants appealed.
19. By a judgment of 7 August 2019 the Velika Gorica County Court allowed the applicants’ appeal, reversed the first-instance judgment of 31 January 2019 (see paragraph 18 above) and ruled for the applicants. Specifically, it ordered the land registry to restore the applicants as the owners of the house in the land register. It held that V.C. had acted in bad faith and thus could not have acquired ownership of the applicants’ house by relying on the principle of the accuracy of the information in the land register.
20. On 9 December 2019 V.C.’s heirs lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the second-instance judgment (see paragraph 19 above).
21. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
COMPLAINT
22. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been deprived of ownership of their summer house.
THE LAW
23. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
24. The Government disputed the admissibility of the application by arguing that it was premature because the civil proceedings complained of were still pending. They also submitted that if the Velika Gorica County Court judgment of 7 August 2019 (see paragraph 19 above) were to remain in force, the applicants would not be able to claim to be the victims of the violation complained of (see paragraphs 22-23 above).
25. The applicants opposed that view and argued that all the relevant issues had been determined in the civil proceedings in their case.
26. The Court notes that the civil proceedings which the applicants instituted with a view to remedying the alleged violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (see paragraphs 22-23 above) are still pending before the domestic courts, and that in the judgment of 7 August 2019 the second-instance court ruled in their favour (see paragraph 19 above).
27. It follows that the present application is inadmissible as premature and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021. {signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtErik Wennerström
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy