Communicated on 4 July 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 13482/15 Radmila TOLIĆ and others against Croatia lodged on 11 March 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented by Ms LJ. Maravi ć -Pir š , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background of the case

The applicants are owners of flats located in residential buildings in Palinove č ka Street in Zagreb ( Vrbani III), which were constructed by a private investor between 2005 and 2006.

In May 2006 the sanitary inspectorate in Zagreb found that the water in the buildings did not meet sanitary and health requirements. Nevertheless, the competent office of Zagreb Municipality ( Grad Zagreb ) issued a permit for the use of the buildings in question, which became final on 26 February 2007.

In September 2007 the applicants received instructions from the sanitary inspectorate that the water in their flats had been contaminated with mineral oils and that it should not be used for any other purpose than to flush the toilet. Subsequent expert reports commissioned in the context of the criminal and civil proceedings instituted by the applicants (see below) confirmed that mineral oils had got into the water supply system of the residential buildings in which the applicants ’ flats are located.

2. The criminal proceedings

On 26 October 2007 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ćinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) against the investors I.V. and B.V. and their companies G. d.o.o . and Z. d.o.o .; the supervising engineers D.P. and D.V.; the chief engineer M.V.; and M.S., the head of the competent office of the Zagreb Municipality, who had issued the permit for the use of the buildings. The applicants alleged that it was those people ’ s responsibility that the water had become contaminated, endangering the health and well-being of a number of people.

Following numerous requests for the proceedings to be speeded up, on 7 October 2008 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office informed the applicants that it had asked an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) to investigate their complaints.

On 29 February 2012 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office rejected the applicants ’ criminal complaint against I.V., B.V., D.V., M.V., M.S. and the company G. d.o.o . on the grounds that there was nothing to suggest that they had committed a criminal offence. The applicants were informed that they could ask for the opening of an investigation before an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court. The applicants availed themselves of that possibility but the investigating judge refused to open an investigation owing to a lack of evidence that the suspects had committed an offence.

At the same time, while rejecting the applicants ’ criminal complaint, on 29 February 2012 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office indicted D.P. and the company Z. d.o.o ., as well as four other people to whom the investigation had been extended, in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court ( Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu ) on charges of endangering life and property related to the failures to take the necessary measures to prevent mineral oils and acids getting into the water supply system in the applicants ’ buildings.

The Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court has not so far opened proceedings in the case at issue.

3. The civil proceedings

On an unspecified date in 2008, the applicants brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ( Op ć inski gra đ anski sud u Zagrebu ) against G. d.o.o ., Z. d.o.o . and C-I d.o.o ., seeking damages in connection with the pollution of the water in their buildings.

On 19 September 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court adopted an interim judgment finding that the applicants ’ claim was well-founded but reserving its decision on an award of damages.

The defendants appealed against that judgment to the Zagreb County Court and the proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants nos. 1-95 complain under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and the applicant no. 96 under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, of the lack of an adequate and effective response by the domestic authorities to their allegations that they were exposed to serious environmental danger for several years, related to the pollution of the water in the residential buildings in which their flats are located.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. With regard to the applicants nos. 1-95, has there been a violation of the right to respect for their home or private and family life in the present case, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ (nos. 1-95 and no. 96) right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 respectively, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

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

Appendix