Communicated on 7 February 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 37517/16 Feliks KAMIĆ against Croatia lodged on 23 June 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Feliks Kamić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Dubrovnik.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a retired civil servant and, at the time relevant for the case, his wife served as a public official in the local administration. He never had any conflict with the law.

On 12 January 2012 the Dubrovnik Police Department ( Policijska uprava dubrova č ko-neretvanska ; hereinafter: the police) received an anonymous complaint alleging that a few days before the applicant had been threatening with a bomb children who had thrown firecrackers into his back yard. On the same day, a police officer went to see the place of the alleged incident and reported that he had not spotted anything for the attention of the police.

On 13 January 2012 the police asked a judge of the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court ( Prekr š ajni sud u Dubrovniku ) to order an urgent search of the applicant ’ s house. The police relied on the information contained in the anonymous complaint.

On the same day the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court accepted the request and ordered the search.

The search carried out by the police found that the applicant had several parts of duly registered deactivated weapons, including two bombs which he used as ashtrays.

Nothing was seized from the applicant and no proceedings were instituted against him.

In March 2012 the applicant informed the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Dubrovniku ) that he intended to bring a civil action against the State in connection with the unlawful and unjustified search of his home. He relied on the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act which required him to attempt to settle the case with the State Attorney ’ s Office before lodging a civil action against the State.

On 15 June 2012 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office declined any responsibility on the part of the State concerning the search of the applicant ’ s house.

On 4 July 2012 the applicant lodged a civil action in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Dubrovniku ) against the State seeking damages for the alleged unlawful and unjustified search of his home. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention and argued that the conduct of the State authorities had damaged his reputation.

On 9 June 2014 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ruled in the applicant ’ s favour. It found that the police had asked and the relevant Minor Offences Court had accepted the search of the applicant ’ s home merely on the basis of an anonymous complaint without taking any further action (such as questioning the applicant ’ s neighbours or possible witnesses to the event) which could have shed light on the information contained in the anonymous complaint. Moreover, the Dubrovnik Municipal Court stressed that the event alleged in the anonymous complaint had taken place at least seventeen days before the complaint was made. These circumstances led it to the conclusion that there had not been even a probable cause to believe that the applicant had committed any minor offence. In this connection, the Dubrovnik Municipal Court explained that if the police had considered that the allegations contained in the anonymous complaint were true, it was then for the police to contact the relevant criminal justice authorities and not the Minor Offences Court. This is because the allegations had concerned an offence of making a serious threat which was not within the competence of the Minor Offences Court. The Dubrovnik Municipal Court also found that the applicant had suffered serious disturbance related to the search of his home.

Upon the appeal by the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office, on 22 October 2014 the Dubrovnik County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Dubrovniku ) reversed the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ’ s judgment and dismissed the applicant ’ s civil action. It held that the anonymous complaint had been sufficient to provide for a probable cause to believe that the applicant had committed a minor offence, which warranted the search of his home.

The applicant challenged this judgment before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 27 April 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed it as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the Dubrovnik County Court. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 6 May 2016.

Meanwhile, in July 2013, on the basis of an anonymous complaint alleging that the applicant was engaged in the unreported letting of his house to tourists, the relevant Dubrovnik State Inspectorate Office ( Dr ž avni inspektorat , Podru č na jedinica Split, Ispostava Dubrovnik ), asked the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court to order a search of the applicant ’ s house.

The search found that the allegations in the anonymous complaint were unfounded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the alleged unlawful and unjustified searches of his home.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home related to the searches of his house, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.