CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 mars 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s1E5E674F { margin:0pt 28.35pt; font-size:10pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s8354CF86 { width:259.15pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application no. 48794/99 by Teodor ZAKLANAC against Croatia       The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   M. Pellonpää, President ,   Mr   G. Ress,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 22 March 1999 and registered on 27 May 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicant is a Croatian citizen of Serbian origin, born in 1948 and living in Sisak, Croatia.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant was born in Croatia, at that time one of the republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the former Yugoslavia), where he had lived until 1991 when, with his family, he allegedly fled to Switzerland. As they did not obtain permission to stay in Switzerland, in 1992 they first moved to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After a couple of months they returned to the Republic of Croatia and lived in different parts of the then occupied Croatian territories.     Meanwhile, the Croatian authorities temporarily accommodated other persons in the applicant’s house in Sisak.     On 17 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Sisak Municipal Court seeking repossession of his house. On 21 April 1997 the court ruled in the applicant’s favour. The respondent appealed unsuccessfully and the decision became final. The applicant sought and on 7 December 1998 obtained an eviction order. The eviction with the assistance of the court organs was scheduled for 22 December 1998, but has not been enforced.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant claims that in 1991 his life and the life of his family members, as well as their security were in serious danger. He also claims that he was forced to leave Croatia in 1991. He invokes Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention and Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4.     He further complains that the non-enforcement of the Court’s eviction order violates his right to respect for his home, private and family life, that it represents discrimination against him on the basis of his Serbian origin and also violates his right to property. He invokes Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     THE LAW [Note2]   1.   The applicant complains that in 1991 his life and the life of his family, as well as their security were in serious danger and that they were forced to flee Croatia.     The Court notes that the facts complained of have taken place prior to 5   November   1997, i. e. the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia. Therefore, this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.   2.   The applicant complains that the failure of the domestic court to enforce its eviction order violates his right to respect for his home, private and family life, his right to property and is discriminatory on the basis of his Serbian origin. He invokes Article 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as Article 14 of the Convention.     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government. It also considers it necessary to examine the case under Article 6 of the Convention.       For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,     DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints that the failure of domestic court to enforce its decision to evict other persons from the applicant’s house violated his right to a fair trial; respect for his home, private and family life; his right to property; and represents a discrimination against him on the basis of his national origin;   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.               Vincent Berger   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President     [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.) [Note2]   In your reasoning specify: Complaint / Article of the Convention [/ Succinct summary of Government’s submissions / Succinct summary of applicant’s submissions in communicated case] / Court’s [Commission’s] case-law, if any / Application of case-law to facts of particular case or considerations for specific facts of case.   Remember to use automatic paragraph numbering (Alt+N) followed by a tab.