Communicated on 9 February 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 63311/14
Bedri HOTI
against Croatia
lodged on 15 September 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Bedri Hoti, is a stateless person, who was born in 1962 and lives in Novska. He is represented before the Court by Ms L. Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivanić Grad.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 1979 the applicant, at the time seventeen years old, came from Kosovo to Croatia where he settled in Novska and where he had registered residence. He was a citizen of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) which allowed him to reside in all republics of the former SFRY, including Croatia.
His family stayed behind and, after his parents had died, the applicant lost any contact with Kosovo.
After coming to Croatia, the applicant first unofficially worked for several months in a restaurant and as a forest worker. Afterwards, in 1986, he took employment as assistant of a private entrepreneur M. in Novska. According to the applicant’s employment records, he was employed with M. in the periods between 1 July 1986 and 15 July 1987; 1 August 1987 and 1 December 1988; and 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1989.
Following the dissolution of the SFRY in 1991, the applicant lost his citizenship of the SFRY and according to the available information he became a stateless person. In addition, he was erased from the register of residence in Croatia.
Meanwhile, war broke out in Croatia and the applicant was engaged in the mandatory civil service with the local authorities. In 1993 he was granted temporary residence in Croatia.
The applicant also applied for the Croatian citizenship but on 3 August 1995 his request was dismissed by the Ministry of the Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova) on the grounds that he did not meet conditions to be admitted to the Croatian citizenship. This decision was upheld on 29 May 1996 by the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske).
The applicant then asked to be granted permanent residence in Croatia.
On 3 July 2003 the Ministry of the Interior dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that he did not meet the necessary statutory requirements; in particular, he was not married to a Croatian national or an alien with a permanent residence in Croatia, and he did not have three years of uninterrupted employment in Croatia. It also held that there was no particular interest of Croatia to grant him residence.
The applicant challenged this decision before the Administrative Court and on 17 August 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed his action as ill-founded upholding the decision of the Ministry of the Interior.
The applicant further lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the decisions of the lower bodies.
On 1 October 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded.
Meanwhile, the applicant obtained a note form M., for whom he had worked, attesting that he had been employed with M. in the period between 1986-1987 and that he had proved to be hard working and responsible employee. M. also promised to employ the applicant again, and to secure him accommodation should he be granted permanent residence.
In the subsequent period, between 26 July 2011 and 26 July 2014, the applicant’s residence was temporarily extended annually for the humanitarian reasons as he was considered to be alien without any valid travel documents. According to the applicant, there is no further possibility to extend his residence even temporarily on this ground.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that he was arbitrarily and unjustifiably deprived of the possibility of regulating his residence status in Croatia.
The applicant complains, invoking Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, that the manner in which the legislative context for regularisation of residence in Croatia functions discriminates the former SFRY citizens against all other “real aliens” whose residence in Croatia was not erased.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life on the account of his overall situation concerning the regularisation of his residence status in Croatia, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 355 and 358, ECHR 2012)?
2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?
3. In view of the applicant’s situation, has he suffered discrimination in the regularisation of his residence status, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents in the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy