CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 8 October 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 33320/15 Vladimir TERLEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 July 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Terlević, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Poreč. He is represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Milanović, a lawyer practising in Umag. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In civil proceedings in the Poreč Municipal Court and Pazin County Court, a final judgment was adopted, requiring the applicant to pay his creditors, M.P. and S.Š., the sum of approximately 500,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). Since the applicant failed to comply with the order, M.P. and S.Š. instituted enforcement proceedings against him in the Poreč Municipal Court, seeking the sale of his property, including the flat he occupied with his family. On 20 December 2013 the Poreč Municipal Court issued an enforcement order as requested. The applicant requested that the enforcement on the flat be suspended since its sale would cause him and his family “irreparable damage” because they had nowhere else to live. He argued that before selling it, the money he owed the creditors should be secured by the sale of his other property. The request was denied. On 31 October 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, which was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court for lack of competence on 8 December 2014. It found that the decision dismissing the applicant’s request to have the enforcement by sale of his flat suspended did not concern a determination of his rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the sale in enforcement proceedings of the flat he occupies with his family would violate his right to respect for his home.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Ćosić v. Croatia , no. 28261/06, § 19, 15   January 2009; Paulić v. Croatia , no. 3572/06, 22   October 2009; Orlić v. Croatia , no. 48833/07, 21 June 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia , no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012)?