CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } FIRST SECTION Application no. 22674/11 Mladen KRIZMANIĆ against Croatia lodged on 30 March 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Mladen Krizmanić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Tinjan. He is represented before the Court by Mr   B. Zustović, a lawyer practising in Pazin. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was employed with the “Work Organisation for Road Maintenance in Pula” ( Radna organizacija za održavanje cesta Pula ), a publicly-owned enterprise. By an agreement of 7 February 1989 the applicant’s employer granted him a specially protected tenancy on a publicly-owned flat in Tinjan for his occupancy and the applicant moved into the flat with his family. The flat was situated in one of the so called “road-workers’ houses” ( cestarske kuće ). On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Specially 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 a specially protected tenancy. On an unspecified date the applicant asked the “Croatian Roads” ( Hrvatske ceste ), a successor of his former employer and the owner of the flat, to conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and himself as the buyer. The owner declined his request on the ground that the applicant had not acquired a specially protected tenancy on the flat at issue because it was a flat for “official purposes” ( stan za službene potrebe ). On 27 May 1994 the applicant brought a civil action in the Pazin Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Pazinu ) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale. He argued that there was another flat in the same house and that those flats had never been given in connection with the performance of any “road works” but to employees on other functions and that those flats had never served any “official purpose”, but were only living premises. On 20 March 1995 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s claim and established that he had the right of specially protected tenancy on the flat at issue and that the defendant had to sell him that flat under the conditions of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, on the ground, inter alia , that the defendant had already sold other flats in other “road-workers’ houses” and that after the applicant had been granted the flat in question he had been removed from the lists for granting specially protected tenancies since it had been deemed that his housing needs had been satisfied. However, that judgment was quashed on 11 September 1995 by the Pula County Court ( Županijski sud u Puli ) and the case was remitted to the Municipal Court. On August 1996 the Pazin Municipal Court established that the applicant had not acquired a specially protected tenancy on the flat in question. That court found that, even though some of the flats in the so called “road-workers’ houses” had indeed been sold under the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, the majority of the flats in those houses had not been sold. That court also established that the flat at issue had not been given to the applicant for any “official purpose”. However, it found that the flat had been given to the applicant for temporary occupation only until he was allocated another flat. This judgment was upheld by the Pula County Court on 28 April 1997. On 23 December 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ), to be decided by the Supreme Court. He lodged it with the Pazin Municipal Court, as required under the Civil Procedure Act. It appears that it was not forwarded to the Supreme Court. On 23 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the civil proceedings at issue with the Constitutional Court. On 17   February 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the proceedings had ended on 28 April 1997. However, on 8 May 2007 the Pazin Municipal Court instituted the proceedings with a view to reinstate the applicant’s submission of 23   December 1997. It appears that soon after that the applicant’s appeal on points of law was forwarded to the Supreme Court which dismissed it on 4   December 2007. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint about the merits of the case was dismissed on 9 September 2010. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of fairness as well as about the length of the civil proceedings whereby he sought a judgment in lieu of a sale contract as regards the flat he occupies. He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to property was violated. He also complains that he was treated differently from those tenants in “road-workers’ houses” who were able to purchase the flats they occupied.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s claim to purchase the flat he occupies 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 his claim to purchase the flat at issue amount to an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V]?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   The Government are invited to submit two copies of all relevant case-files and other relevant documents concerning the granting the applicant the right to occupy the flat in question and challenging of any such decision before the national authorities.