CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 septembre 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22 September 2000 Ilić v. Croatia (dec.) - 42389/98 Decision 19.9.2000 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Restrictions imposed on entry to Croatia of Yugoslav national owning property there: inadmissible In 1987, the applicant, a Yugoslav national living in Germany, bought a house in Croatia. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991, the applicant was treated as a foreign citizen in Croatia and her entry into and stay on Croatian territory became subject to restrictions. In 1993 she obtained permission for an extended stay which allowed her to remain in Croatia for over a year, after which she returned to Germany. In 1996, the Croatian authorities refused to grant her permanent residence. Her subsequent administrative and constitutional proceedings were unsuccessful. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of an alien taken in a country of which he is not a national do not entail any determination of his civil rights or obligations or of any criminal charge against him within the meaning of this provision: incompatible ratione materiae . Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, what became subject to restrictions was the applicant’s right to reside in Croatia;   such restrictions were neither absolute nor permanent. The Convention does not guarantee as such any right to enter or reside in a Contracting State to persons who are not its nationals. Furthermore, this provision does not encompass the right for a foreign citizen who owns property in another country permanently to reside in that country in order to use his property. The applicant, who had stayed for more than a year in Croatia, returned to Germany and did not seek a new entry visa but a permanent residence title. It could not be speculated what the authorities would have answered to a further visa request. The applicant has therefore failed establish that the Croatian authorities denied her access to her property: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes