Communicated on 8 October 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 14703/13 Gordana TOMAC and others against Croatia lodged on 29 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Gordana Tomac , Ms Ingrid Tomac and Ms Veronika Tomac , are Croatian nationals who were born in 1981, 1975 and 1949 respectively and live in Jastrebarsko . They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Preproti ć , a lawyer practising in Jastrebarsko .

The circumstances of the case

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

By deed of gift dated 31 August 2000, I.T. (the first and second applicants ’ father and the third applicant ’ s husband) transferred ownership of both the family home and a plot of land to the applicants.

On 4 September 2000 the applicants lodged a request to register their ownership of the house and the plot of land with the land registry of the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Jastrebarskom ).

The Jastrebarsko Municipal Court did not deal with that request, and I.T. remained registered as the owner with the land registry. The applicants were not informed that there had been any problem with their request.

On 23 July 2008 the Ministry of Finance ( Ministarstvo financija ) lodged a request with the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court, seeking to register an interest against I.T. ’ s property in order to ensure that he would pay his taxes.

The Jastrebarsko Municipal Court allowed that request, and on 8 August 2008 registered the interest sought by the State (hereafter “the security interest”) against I.T. ’ s property.

On 16 September 2008 the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court noted the existence of the applicants ’ request for registration of ownership with the land registry.

In 2009 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the State in the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court, seeking to prevent the registration of the security interest against the house and the plot of land with the land registry.

On 24 September 2009 the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court dismissed the applicants ’ civil action. It found that there had been a manifest error on the part of the land registry department in processing the applicants ’ request and that, in the ordinary course of events, the request of the Ministry of Finance could not have been processed before that of the applicants. However, it considered that the Ministry of Finance, in relying on the information from the land registry (according to which I.T. was still the registered owner of the house and the plot of land), had acted in good faith; therefore, there were no grounds to prevent registration of the security interest in favour of the State.

The applicants challenged that judgment by lodging an appeal with the Velika Gorica County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Velikoj Gorici ), and on 6 June 2012 the Velika Gorica County Court dismissed their appeal, upholding the first-instance judgment.

The applicants then challenged these judgments before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 21 November 2012 the Constitutional Court declared their constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain, invoking Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the domestic courts did not deal with their request to register their ownership of the house and the plot of land with the land registry, as a result of which, owing to the registration of the State ’ s security interest against I.T., their property rights were adversely affected.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have access to a court concerning their request to register their ownership of a house and a plot of land with the land registry, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?

In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicants ’ case.