FIRST SECTION
Application no. 69735/11
Filip VUKUŠIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 25 October 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Filip Vukušić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
S.K. and Z.K. had a specially protected tenancy on a publicly-owned flat in Sisak. It appears that they left Croatia in 1991.
On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo) which regulates the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy. In general, the Act entitles the holder of a specially protected tenancy on a publicly-owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale.
In 1992 the flat was allocated to the applicant for his occupation and he acquired a specially protected tenancy on it. The specially protected tenancy of S.K. and Z.K. was terminated in a final judgment in 1993. On 23 December 1993 S.K. and Z.K. lodged a request for the re-opening of finally concluded civil proceedings. The request was granted and the proceedings were resumed.
In 1994 the owner of the flat, a publicly-owned company, sold the flat to the applicant under the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act.
In October 1997 the judgment terminating the specially protected tenancy of S.K. and Z.K. was reversed.
In 2003 S.K. and Z.K. brought a civil action in the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) against the parties to the sale contract from 1994, seeking the annulment of that contract. During the proceedings S.K. died. The claim was dismissed by the Sisak Municipal Court on the ground that the sale contract had been concluded in accordance with law since at that time the applicant had had the specially protected tenancy on that flat.
This judgment was reversed on 22 November 2007 by the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) on the ground that Z.K. had not lost her specially protected tenancy since it had been returned to her. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 20 January 2010.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 9 June 2011.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 8 that his right to respect for his home was violated.
He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was violated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has an eviction order been issued against the applicant? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home?
2. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?
The Government are invited to submit two copies of all relevant case-files and other documents.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy