Communicated on 9 February 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 11756/11 Dubravko BRLJAČIĆ against Croatia lodged on 29 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dubravko Brljačić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Požega . He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Sabljar , a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

The circumstances of the case

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

In September 1997 the applicant bought a commercial property (a retail store) from a company P.-d.

In March 2000 the Po ž ega County State Attorney ’ s Office ( Ž upanijsko državni odvjetni š tvo u Po ž egi ) indicted thirteen managers of the company P.-d. in the Po ž ega County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Po ž egi ) on charges of the abuse of power and authority in connection with a several contracts concluded by the company P.-d., including the one concluded with the applicant.

During the proceedings the applicant was questioned as a witness concerning the criminal charges against the accused.

On 4 February 2002 the Po ž ega County Court found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced them to the sentences of imprisonment. It also annulled the contracts concluded by the company P.-d., including the contract concluded by the applicant.

The accused and the Po ž ega County State Attorney ’ s Office challenged the first-instance judgment before the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ). The applicant and several other persons who had concluded the contracts with the company P.-d. also challenged the first-instance judgment in connection with the annulment of their property titles.

On 19 April 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the accused and the Po ž ega County State Attorney ’ s Office as ill-funded and declared the complains by the applicant and the other third parties inadmissible on the grounds that they had not been authorised to lodge an appeal against the first-instance judgment.

By the judgment of the Supreme Court the judgment of the Po ž ega County Court became final.

The applicant then challenged the judgments of the lower courts by lodging a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ).

On 30 June 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Supreme Court as ill-founded and declared the complaints against the first-instance judgment of the Po ž ega County Court inadmissible as lodged more than thirty days after its adoption.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the criminal courts ’ judgment annulling his property title and lack of access to court in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have access to court in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

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

3. If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?

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

5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents relevant for the applicant ’ s case.