CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } Communicated on 16 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5151/15 Radmila VOJNOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 January 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Radmila Vojnović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2004 the applicant occupied a flat in Zagreb situated in a building in the wider city-centre of Zagreb. It appears that in the denationalisation process, a certain V.W-M. became the owner of the building. As V.W-M. intended to sell her property, sometimes in spring 2010 various individuals started visiting the building and asserting pressure on the tenants to leave their flats, arguing that they had no right to live there. In the period of four months there were several burglaries in the building and the tenants were threatened that their belongings would be simply thrown out from their flats. In December 2010 a certain L.Č., represented by O.Č., became the owner of the building. At the same time there was an arson and then in January 2011 another arson in the building. The police investigation was conducted into the events and on 18 January 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) alleging that the arson was orchestrated by O.Č. and executed by a certain M.B. in order to force her and the other tenants to leave the building. Eventually, in February 2011, the applicant accepted the request of O.Č. and left the building. Although at first he promised to compensate the applicant, she never received any payment and when she tried to contact him he threatened her saying that he would make her disabled if she insisted on the compensation. He also threatened that he would kill her family and that he would rape her. As a result of such ill-treatment the applicant sought psychiatric help. On 17 December 2013 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office alleging pressure and ill-treatment by O.Č. and several other individuals. After a number of the applicant’s inquiries into the status of her case, on 6 October 2014 she received a letter from the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office indicating that O.Č. had been questioned and that he denied any of the applicant’s allegations and that there were no evidence to refute his statement. The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office also stressed that an investigation into the two arson incidents was still ongoing. On 6 November 2014 the applicant received a letter from the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) reiterating the information provided by the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office. The applicant also made a number of complaints to the police and the Office of the President of the Republic ( Ured Predsjednika Republike Hrvatske ) about her case. Meanwhile, the building where the applicant lived was demolished and a hotel was constructed. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, about inadequate procedural response of the domestic authorities to her allegations of harassment, arson and threats by a private party.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Have the State authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention? In particular, have they effectively investigated the alleged harassment, arson and threats against the applicant?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents in the applicant’s case.