Communicated on 30 November 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 67998/13 Mila BULIĆ against Croatia lodged on 21 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mila Bulić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Metković . She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Cvitanović , a lawyer practising in Metković .

The circumstances of the case

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

In 1970 the applicant ’ s father, I.B., was granted a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Metkovi ć . It appears that the flat was situated on the business premises of the applicant ’ s father ’ s employer, a socially-owned company, PIK Neretva.

The applicant was born in 1972 and has been living in that flat ever since.

On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ), which regulated the sale of socially-owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy. Providers of specially protected tenancies of flats situated on business premises were obliged to ensure that another corresponding flat would be available for purchase to the holders of specially protected tenancies of such flats who had submitted a request to purchase the flat they occupied. If the providers failed to do so within one year, a tenant was entitled to purchase the flat he or she occupied.

On 22 February 1993 the applicant ’ s father lodged a request to purchase the flat he occupied with his family. This request was refused. In a letter of 26 February 1993 the Metkovi ć Housing and Communal Fund ( Fond u stambenom i komunalnom gospodarstvu Op ć ine Metkovi ć – hereinafter “the Housing Fund” ) informed the applicant ’ s father that it could not sell him the flat he occupied because it was situated on the business premises of the company Neretvanski sliv . It was also stated that the building where the flat was situated had previously been part of the so-called “Water Community” ( Vodna zajednica ), which had ceased to exist, and PIK Neretva had “swallowed” their premises. In 1990 the premises of the “Water Community” had been transferred to Neretvanski sliv . A part of the building previously owned by the “Water Community”, where the flat in question was situated, had been listed by the company Neretva, the legal successor of PIK Neretva, as its property; this was incorrect since the building at issue belonged to the Split Water Company and consisted of its business premises.

On 1 June 1994 the applicant ’ s father brought a civil action before the Metkovi ć Municipal Court against the Housing Fund, seeking a judgment ordering the conclusion of a contract of sale for the flat in question.

It appears that the company Croatian Waters – Zagreb brought a civil action before the Metkovi ć Municipal Court against the City of Metkovi ć , asking it to acknowledge the claimant ’ s ownership of the building at issue. The defendant did not contest the claim and a judgment to that effect was issued on 20 December 1999.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s father changed the defendant named in the proceedings he had instituted in 1994 (see above) to the City of Metković . The company Croatian Waters – Zagreb participated in the proceedings as an intervener on the side of the defendant. The Metković Municipal Court twice granted his claim, but both judgments were quashed by the Dubrovnik County Court. The claim was then dismissed on 28 August 2012. The Municipal Court held on the one hand that Neretva had not been the owner of the building at issue at the time of its privatisation, but on the other, that the claimant had not proven that that building had been excluded from privatisation.

This judgment was upheld by the Dubrovnik County Court on 12 December 2012. This court added that the claimant had not proved that the City of Metković had been entitled to sell the flat at issue.

The applicant ’ s father ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 6 June 2013.

The applicant ’ s father died in August 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that her property rights had been violated, contrary to the guarantees under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?