CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 2 June 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50200/13 Vera VIJATOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Vera Vijatović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Adžić, 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. On 24 May 1961 the applicant’s husband was granted a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Zagreb by the Yugoslav Peoples’ Army (the “YPA”). In 1991 the property of the YPA became the property of the Republic of Croatia. On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the 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. State-owned flats were excluded until 1995 when the amendments to the above-said Act allowed the sale of the State-owned flats as well. The time-limit for lodging a request for purchase was thirty days. On 29 January 1997 the Constitutional Court repelled some of the provisions of the Action Amendments of the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, including the one fixing the time-limit for lodging a request for purchasing a flat. The applicant’s husband died on 15 April 1996. On 9 June 2006 the applicant lodged a request to purchase the flat she occupied with the Ministry of defence. The request was denied and on 19   March 2008 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court, seeking a judgment in lieu of a contract on sale. Her claim was dismissed on 24 June 2008 on the ground that the applicant had lodged her request for purchase outside the accepted time-limits. This judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court on 12 October 2010. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 20   February 2013.   COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the fact that in her case the national courts interpreted the relevant law contrary to the practice of the Constitutional Court. She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about her inability to purchase the flat she occupies.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant’s claim to purchase the flat she occupies under favourable conditions under the amended Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act “sufficiently established” to attract applicability to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, did the refusal by the national courts to grant her 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 in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; 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?