FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14832/06
by Gordana SEDLAR and Bogdan SEDLAR
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr A. Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 March 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Gordana Sedlar and Mr Bogdan Sedlar, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1956 respectively and live in Rijeka. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Bengin, a lawyer practising in Rijeka. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The second applicant was employed in the Yugoslav People’s Army (hereinafter the “YPA”) and was granted a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Rijeka, in Prešernova Street.
On 17 July 1991 the Government adopted a decree forbidding any transactions with the immovable property situated in Croatia and belonging to the former Yugoslavia’s federal institutions or legal entities having seat in one of its former federal units (Uredba o zabrani raspolaganja nekretninama na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske – “the Decree”, Official Gazette no. 36/1991). The Decree entered into force on 24 July 1991 and was to remain in force pending the process of succession of the former Yugoslavia.
On 10 September 1991 the YPA’s housing commission granted the first applicant the right to purchase another, larger, flat in Rijeka, in Novakova Street. On 7 June 1995 the Ministry of Defence brought a civil action in the Rijeka Municipal Court against the applicants asking for their specially protected tenancy of the Prešernova flat to be terminated. On 28 June 1996 the same Ministry brought a further action in the Rijeka Municipal Court seeking the applicants’ eviction from the Novakova flat. The proceedings were joined on 3 April 1998.
In its judgment of 27 October 2004 the Rijeka Municipal Court terminated the applicants’ specially protected tenancy of the Prešernova flat and dismissed the claim in respect of the Novakova flat. However, on 23 March the Rijeka County Court reversed the impugned part of the first-instance judgment so as to accept the Ministry’s claim and ordered the applicants’ eviction from the Novakova flat within fifteen days.
The applicants then filed a constitutional complaint which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 28 September 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain in substance that their right to respect for their home was violated because their protected tenancy in respect of one flat was terminated and in respect of the other flat not recognised.
They further complain under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol. No. 12 that they were discriminated against because all other cases involving the same issues ended by recognition of specially protected tenancy of one of the flats.
THE LAW
By letter dated 8 June 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 20 July 2007.
The applicants, who were represented by a lawyer, have failed to submit observations in reply. Moreover, they have failed to respond to the communications from the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 30 August 2007 warning the applicants of the possibility that their case might be struck out of the Court’s list if they failed to respond.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy