Communicated on 26 May 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 49001/14
Nikola DABIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 25 June 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nikola Dabić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Sunja. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Rupčić, a lawyer practising in Sisak.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant lived in his house in the village of Petrinjac, near Sunja, Croatia. In August 1995, during a Croatian army military action codenamed “Storm” (Oluja), the applicant fled Croatia.
On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Management of Certain Property Act (“the Sequestration Act”) entered into force. It provided that property belonging to persons who had left Croatia after 17 October 1990 was to be sequestrated (that is to say taken into the care of) and controlled by, the State. It also authorised local authorities to temporarily accommodate other persons in such property.
On 23 March 1996 the Sunja Municipality Housing Commission (hereinafter “the Housing Commission”) issued a decision authorising a certain D.V. to use the applicant’s house temporarily.
In 2000 the applicant applied to recover repossession of his house; the application was accepted on 24 April 2001 by the Housing Commission and D.V. was ordered to vacate the house.
D.V. vacated the house on 24 March 2003.
After the applicant had repossessed the house he noted that all movable property in the house, as well as some vehicles and livestock, had been stolen and that parts of the house had been badly damaged.
In 2003 the applicant brought a civil action in the Sisak Municipal Court against the State, the Sunja Municipality and D.V. seeking damages in the amount of 224,400 Croatian kuna (HRK) for his stolen and destroyed property.
D.V. subsequently died and the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of him.
On 20 February the Sisak Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that there was no legal basis for holding the State liable in such circumstances. This judgment was upheld by the Sisak County Court on 23 October 2008, the Supreme Court on 31 August 2011 and by the Constitutional Court on 9 January 2014.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his property was stolen and badly damaged and that the State bears liability for it.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the authorities under an obligation, as established in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, to take measures to ensure the protection of the applicant’s property while D.V. was using it?
2. If so, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect that property?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy