CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 31 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 19722/24 and 20307/24 Peter GABRIJAN and Others against Slovenia and Tamara KANDRIČ against Slovenia lodged on 5 July 2024 and 8 July 2024 respectively communicated on 10 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal to register the property title following the applicants’ alleged bona fide purchase of the apartments from a public authority. In 2009 the applicants purchased, from the Maribor Public Inter ‑ Municipality Housing Fund (“the Maribor Public Fund”), apartments for which they held specially protected tenancy rights ( stanovanjska pravica ). The sale was conducted under the privatization scheme outlined in the Housing Act. Later, these apartments were “returned” to their original owner, from whom they had been confiscated after World War II. This return resulted from a separate set of court proceedings, of which the applicants were allegedly unaware. In 2018, the applicants successfully sought to have the return-of-property proceedings reopened. Shortly thereafter, they also filed a lawsuit to have their property title for the apartments in question registered in the land registry, as this had not been done previously. However, the domestic courts rejected this legal action, ruling that the applicants had not purchased the property from the rightful owner, that is the Maribor Municipality and not the Maribor Public Fund. The applicants’ attempts to challenge this decision through various legal remedies, including constitutional complaints, were unsuccessful. The applicants complain that, despite purchasing the apartments in good faith from the Maribor Public Fund and being granted property rights under the relevant domestic law – rights that should apply even without registration in the land register – they were nonetheless unable to register their property title. They allege that this constitutes a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. In this context, the applicants submit that they have suffered financial loss due to the impugned proceedings, which includes, among other things, the value of the apartments which they are now unable to own and the rent they have been compelled to pay. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1? More specifically, did the domestic courts in the particular circumstances of the applicants’ case strike the requisite fair balance between the competing interests (see Seregin and Others v. Russia , nos. 31686/16 and 4 others, §§ 89-111, 16 March 2021; Vukušić v. Croatia , no. 69735/11, §§ 60-70, 31 May 2016; Gladysheva v. Russia , no. 7097/10, §§   64-83, 6 December 2011; and Gashi v. Croatia , no. 32457/05, §§ 27-43, 13 December 2007)?   2.     Are the applicants able to obtain a remedy for the alleged violation of their right enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 in the reopened return-of-property proceeding? Do the applicants have at their disposal any other proceedings that would constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention with respect of their complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1?         APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 19722/24 Gabrijan and Others v. Slovenia Peter GABRIJAN 1954 Maribor Ali DEMIRI 1973 Maribor Štefan ŠTANDEKER 1956 Maribor Miran DOBOVIŠEK 2. 20307/24 Kandrič v. Slovenia Tamara KANDRIČ 1955 Maribor Miran DOBOVIŠEK