Communicated on 30 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 75045/12 Mirsad SADIKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 15 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mirsad Sadiković , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb . He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Knežević , a lawyer employed with the Civic Committee for Human Rights, a n NGO based in Zagreb.

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

The applicant, a roofer by profession, was as a civilian working for the former Yugoslav People ’ s Army (hereafter “YPA”) since 1979.

On 6 October 1988 the YPA awarded him a specially protected tenancy ( stanarsko pravo ) of a flat in Zagreb surfacing 22.44 square metres.

On 24 July 1991 the Croatian Government adopted a decree ( Uredba o zabrani raspolaganja nekretninama na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske ) which forbade any transactions concerning property of the YPA pending the process of dissolution of the former Yugoslavia.

By a decision of the YPA, Zagreb Garrison of 1 October 1991 the applicant was awarded another flat of 55 square metres with an option to purchase it.

The applicant claims that he moved into the new flat with his family (wife and two children) because his former flat was by another decision of the YPA awarded to someone else.

On 3 October 1991 the Government adopted another decree ( Uredba o preuzimanju sredstava JNA i SSNO na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske u vlasništvo Republike Hrvatske ) deciding to take over all YPA property in Croatia.

By a decision of 24 January 1992 the Croatian Ministry of Defence awarded the applicant ’ s former flat to a certain D.K. for temporary use, who moved into it two days later.

1. Civil proceedings concerning the first flat

On 7 June 1995 the State brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ) against the applicant seeking termination of his specially protected tenancy in respect of the first flat on the ground that he had been absent from it for more than six months without justified reason, contrary to section 99 of the Housing Act.

While the civil proceedings were pending, on 18 September 1996 the State concluded a sale-purchase agreement with D.K. whereby it sold him the flat in question.

By a judgment of 14 September 2000 the court ruled for the applicant and dismissed the State ’ s action.

By a judgment of 7 December 2004 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) dismissed an appeal by the State and upheld the first-instance judgment which thereby became final.

2. Civil proceedings concerning the second flat

Meanwhile, on 13 March 1996 the State brought another civil action against the applicant, also in the Zagreb Municipal Court. This time it sought his eviction from the second flat, awarded to him by the YPA ’ s decision of 1 October 1991, arguing that the decision in question was null and void as it was contrary to the Decree of 24 July 1991 , and that the applicant had no legal basis to occupy the flat.

By a judgment of 1 June 2006 the court ruled for the State and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat.

By a judgment of 3 June 2008 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment which thereby became final.

By a decision of 4 April 2012 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint. In so doing it relied on the fact that in the course of the civil proceedings the Ministry of Defence had offered the applicant a flat of 35 square metres, which he had refused. The Constitutional Court ’ s decision was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 18 April 2012.

It would appear that the State has not yet instituted enforcement proceedings with a view to enforcing the judgment of 3 June 2008 and evicting the applicant.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the violation of his right to respect for home in that he was left without a flat to live in .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Does the judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 3 June 2008 constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home , within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?