CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 juin 2015

.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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 29 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 63081/14 Ljubica LALIĆ against Croatia lodged on 12 September 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Ljubica Lalić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Šibenik. She is represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Labura, a lawyer practising in Šibenik. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Proceedings concerning the fiduciary transfer of the applicant’s house to a bank On 24 September 1998 the applicant and her husband entered an agreement on fiduciary transfer of their house with the Jadranska bank Šibenik, in connection with a loan of 200,000 Croatian kuna they took from the bank. On 13 March 2005 the applicant brought a civil action in the Šibenik Municipal Court against the said bank and company “Slavonac”, claiming that neither she nor her husband had ever signed the agreement on fiduciary transfer of their house and that she had learned about it for the first time in the inheritance proceedings instituted after the death of her husband. The Municipal Court commissioned opinion of an expert in graphology who confirmed that the signatures on the said agreement were indeed those of the applicant and her husband and on 15 February 2008 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the Šibenik County Court on 27 September 2010 and the Supreme Court on 2   July 2013. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 12   March 2014. 2.     Eviction proceedings In the meantime, on 18 April 2006 the Jadranska bank Šibenik lodged a request for enforcement with the Šibenik Municipal Court, against the applicant, seeking her eviction, on the basis of a Transcript certified by a notary public on 9 February 2006 and its Annex of 21 February 2006 ( Zapisnik o posvjedočenju činjenica s potvrdom kojeg je sastavio javni bilježnik i dopuna Potvrde ). These documents were issued in connection with the above-said agreement on fiduciary transfer of the applicant’s and her husband’s house. On 26 May an eviction order against the applicant was issued by the Šibenik Municipal Court. On 14 June 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against the eviction order, relying on the above-mentioned civil proceedings. The appeal was dismissed by the Šibenik County Court on 26 February 2007. However, on 9 October 2007 the eviction was adjourned. In these proceedings the applicant claimed that the eviction order issued against her was contrary to her right to respect for her home since the house in which she lived was her only home and she had nowhere else to go. On 20 January 2012 the creditor asked the court to adjourn the applicant’s eviction until further notice. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the eviction order was issued in violation of her right to respect for her home.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?