Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206
April 2017
Vaskrsić v. Slovenia - 31371/12
Judgment 25.4.2017 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1
Control of the use of property
Sale of applicant’s house at public auction to enforce judgment debt of EUR 124: violation
Facts – The applicant’s home was seized and sold at public auction for half its market value in order to enforce a judgment debt amounting to some EUR 124 after he repeatedly failed to respond to demands for payment. In the Convention proceedings he complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the creditors and the purchaser of the house. The measure was, however, manifestly disproportionate.
So finding, the Court noted that the debt the creditor had enforced through the sale of the applicant’s house was low (around EUR 500 when interest and enforcement expenses were taken into account). The house was sold for half its market value without the domestic court considering any alternative measures. This was despite the fact that (i) the applicant appeared to be employed and to have a monthly income, (ii) the creditor had in fact in the interim requested enforcement through the attachment of the applicant’s salary and bank account, and (iii) another creditor had already successfully enforced a much higher debt through the attachment of the applicant’s bank account.
While the Court attached great importance to securing effective enforcement proceedings for creditors, in the present case it had not been shown that the judicial sale of the applicant’s house had been necessary. In view, in particular, of the low value of the debt and the lack of consideration of other suitable and less onerous measures by the domestic authorities, the respondent State had failed to strike a fair balance between the aim pursued and the measure employed in the enforcement proceedings against the applicant.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 77,000 in respect of pecuniary damage (comprising (i) the difference between the market value of the applicant’s house and the price achieved at auction and (ii) default interest) and EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy