FIRST SECTION
Application no. 3925/10
Ante LEMO against Croatia
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Croatian nationals. They live in Mlini and are represented before the Court by Ms D. Košta, a lawyer practising in Split.
A. The circumstances of the cases
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On various unspecified dates during the 1970-ties the applicants moved into a flat in Mlini, Dubrovnik, as employees of the publicly-owned enterprise Mlini Hotels.
On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under protected tenancies, giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly-owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions.
Some time after 1991 the Mlini Hotels was privatised.
On various unspecified dates during the 1990-ies the applicants sought to purchase their flats from Mlini Hotels. Their requests were refused.
On various dated during the 2000-ies Mlini Hotels brought separate civil actions in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against each of the applicants, seeking their eviction on the ground that they had no legal basis to occupy the flats.
The applicants lodged a counterclaims, seeking recognition of their protected tenancy on the flats they occupied as well as judgments in lieu of the contracts of sale.
On various dates the Dubrovnik Municipal Court reached decisions in the applicants’ cases. It accepted the plaintiff’s claims and dismissed the applicants’ counterclaims on the ground that the premises in dispute were not flats within the meaning of section 6 § 1(1) of the Housing Act because they did not concern a single construction unit. Furthermore, it held that the premises in question were situated in the plaintiff’s personal building designed for temporary accommodation for the plaintiff’s employees on which the applicants could not acquire protected tenancies.
The first-instance judgments were all upheld by the Dubrovnik County Court and the Constitutional Court.
The applicants were all forcefully evicted from the flats owned by the Mlini Hotels on 19 November 2010.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Housing Act (Zakon o stambenim odnosima, Official Gazette nos. 51/1985, 42/1986, 22/1992 and 70/1993) read as follows:
Section 8
“A protected tenancy cannot be acquired in respect of:
1. Flats designated for temporary or provisional accommodation ...”
The Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo, Official Gazette no. 27/1991 with further amendments - “the Act”) regulates the conditions of sale of flats let under protected tenancies.
Section 1 of the Act gave the right to the holders of protected tenancies of publicly-owned flats to purchase the flats under favourable conditions, provided that each holder bought only one flat.
Section 161 paragraph 1 of the Property Act (Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima, Official Gazette no 91/1996) reads as follows:
“An owner has the right to seek repossession of his or her property from a person in whose possession it is.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for their home had been violated.
They also complain that, unlike the other holders of specially protected tenancies of socially-owned flats, they were not able to purchase the flats they occupied under favourable condition.
They also invoke Articles 6 and 17 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to explain in detail the system of protected tenancy in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its housing policy, including the contributions to the housing funds.
2. Were the applicants’ claims to purchase the flats under favourable conditions under the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act “sufficiently established” to attract applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, did the refusal by the national courts to grant their claims to purchase the flats at issue amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
3. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
3925/10
22/12/2009
Ante LEMO
29/09/1954
3955/10
22/12/2009
Marija MATANA
30/11/1957
3974/10
22/12/2009
Vera RABRENOVIĆ
01/01/1964
4009/10
23/12/2009
Mile ČUČAK
09/10/1949
4054/10
22/12/2009
Cmiljka JAZVIN
07/07/1950
4128/10
22/12/2009
Dušan TOMOVIĆ
27/02/1941
4132/10
22/12/2009
Marija BLAŠKOVIĆ
20/01/1950
4133/10
22/12/2009
Martin MIOĆ
19/07/1951
Mlini
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy