CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 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 } .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 } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION Application no. 75012/12 Antun KRPIĆ against Croatia lodged on 18 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Antun Krpić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Z.   Zaninovic, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a holder of the protected tenancy on a flat in Zagreb, Radnički dol. It was decided that the building in which the flat was situated would be demolished owing to its poor state of repair and that all tenants would be provided with other suitable flats. All tenants were provided with such flats, save fort the applicant who was offered an inhabitable flat (with flooded floors, mouldy walls and in ruins). In 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the Zagreb Municipality, seeking to be granted a suitable flat for his occupation. The claim was dismissed on 26 September 2006 on the ground that the legal basis for granting another flat to the applicant had ceased to exist. This judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court on 27 April 2010. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 2 June 2011 and the applicant’s constitutional complaint on 7 May 2012 by the Constitutional Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that he was deprived of his home and discriminated against since all other tenants from the same building were provided with other flats.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?     The Government are invited to submit two copies of the administrative case file concerning the demolition of the building where the flat on which the applicant had a specially protected tenancy was situated as well as two copies of the case-file concerning the proceedings before the national courts.