Communicated on 24 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 59816/12 Ljubica VILIĆ and Dragan VILIC against Croatia lodged on 26 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Ljubica Vilić and Mr Dragan Vili ć , are Croatian nationals, who were born in 1955 and 1949 respectively and live in Zemun . They are represented before the Court by Mr L. Sikirica , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicants own of a house in Glina . During the Homeland war the applicants fled Croatia.

On 19 September 1995 the Glina Municipality Housing Commission ( Stambena Komisija Glina ) issued a decision authorising M.I. to temporarily use the applicants ’ house. On the same date M.I. moved into the house.

On an unknown date the applicant Drag an Vilić filed a request for re ‑ possession of his property with the Glina Municipality Housing Commission, as provided by the Act on Termination of the Temporary Takeover and Managing of Certain Property Act.

On 7 April 2000 Glina Municipality Housing Commission annulled its decision of 19 September 1995. It also ordered M.I. to vacate the premises within 5 days upon the receipt of the Housing Commission ’ s notice on alternative accommodation for him and his family.

On 7 November 2000 the applicants moved back into their house.

On an unknown date the applicants brought a civil claim before the Glina Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Glini ) seeking 152,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) for compensation for inability to use their house in the period between 1 October 1995 and 1 November 2000.

On 18 June 2004 the Glina Muncipal Court dismissed the applicants claim as unfounded.

Upon the applicants ’ appeal, the Sisak County Court ( Županijski sud u Sisku ) upheld the first instance judgment.

The applicant then filed an appeal on points of law. After the Supreme Court had examined the merits of their appeal, it decided that it was unfounded and it upheld the decisions of the lower courts. This decision was adopted on 29 June 2006.

The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint. On 16 September 2009 the Constitutional Court quashed all three judgments and ordered a fresh examination of the case.

In the renewed proceedings the first and second-instance courts ruled again against the applicants. They considered that the restriction on the use of the house had not imposed an excessive burden on the applicants.

The applicants then lodged again an appeal on points of law but this time the Supreme Court declared it inadmissible ratione valoris on 9 March 2011. It divided the value of dispute (HRK 152,000) on two defendants and established that the value of dispute was HRK 76,000, which was below the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000.

On 16 February 2012 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants ’ constitutional claim inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the fairness of the above proceedings and the refusal of the Supreme Court to examine the merits of their appeal on points of law in the renewed proceedings.

2. They also complain that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession was violated contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the decision of the Supreme Court of 9 March 2011 to declare the applicants ’ appeal on points of law ( revizija ) inadmissible ratione valoris in breach of their right of access to a court and/or their right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty having regard to that court ’ s previous decision of 29 June 2006?

2. Did the refusal of compensating the applicants breach their right to property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?