CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION Application no. 38906/13 Dragica TIJARDOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 16 May 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Dragica Tijardović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Split. She is represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Duplančić, a lawyer practising in Split. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the applicant’s father in law was granted a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Split. However, since that flat was derelict, in 1983 he was granted a specially protected tenancy on another flat, also in Split. The same year the applicant’s father in law, his wife, the applicant’s husband, the applicant and their child moved into the flat. Another child was born in 1984. The applicant’s parents in law renovated the first flat and moved back into it in 1985. The applicant, her husband and their children continued to live in the second flat. They paid the rent and all bills. On 3 June 1991, the 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 1994 the applicant’s husband died and she continued to live in the same flat with two children. On 22 October 1996 the Leases Act ( Zakon o najmu stanova ) was enacted. It in general regulates the legal relationship between lessee and lessor in regard to the lease of flats. It recognises a special category of lessees, those who were previously holders of specially protected tenancies on privately-owned flats. Such a category is, according to the Act, subject to a number of protections, such as an obligation for the owners to contract a lease for an unlimited period of time, the payment of a so called “protected rent”, the amount of which is to be prescribed by the Government, and strictly limited reasons for termination of the lease. This Act abolishes the specially protected tenancy as such. The applicant’s father in law died in 1998. In 2000 the applicant’s mother in law bought the first flat. On the basis of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act the applicant requested the owner of the flat she occupied to conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and herself as the buyer. Since the owner declined her request, on 7 November 2000 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Splitu ) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale. Later on she also sought in the alternative that her status of a protected lessee be recognised. On 30 June 2009 the Split Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claims on the ground that she had never acquired a specially protected tenancy on that flat and therefore had no legal basis for occupying the flat. Her eviction was also ordered. This judgment was upheld by the Split County Court on 25 August 2010. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 19 September 2012. Her subsequent constitutional complaint was also declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on 28 March 2013. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that her right to respect for her home has been violated. QUESTION 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?