CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 58566/19 Cena ZDJELAR and Robert ZDJELAR against Croatia lodged on 6 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings the applicants instituted against the local authorities seeking compensation for unlawful sequestration of their flat which those authorities in the applicants’ absence used to accommodate persons in need of housing. After the second-instance court ruled in the applicants’ favour and awarded them compensation, the Supreme Court, following the local authorities’ appeal on points of law, reversed the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the applicants’ civil action only because it found that the applicants had wrongly sued the local authorities and not the State. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing the applicants’ civil action for compensation on the ground that they had directed it against the Karlovac Township rather than against the State, in breach of their right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria , no. 17868/07, 27 March 2008, and Spasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 45150/05, 10 June 2010), and/or their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Tarnawczyk v. Poland , no. 27480/02, 7   December 2010; Sierpiński v. Poland , no. 38016/07, 3 November 2009, and Plechanow v. Poland , no. 22279/04, 7 July 2009)?