Communicated on 3 July 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 70694/12 Darko Å TIMAC and Daniela KUZMIN- Å TIMAC against Croatia lodged on 9 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Darko Å timac and Ms Daniela Kuzmin- Å timac , are Croatian nationals, who were born in 1957 and 1958 respectively and live in Opatija . They are represented before the Court by the second applicant , who is a lawyer practising in Opatija .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicants ’ flat is located in a house which their share with a certain D.D. and his partner M.D., who have a flat on the ground floor of the house.

For a number of years the applicants are complaining to various domestic authorities about the problems which they have with their neighbour D.D. This has resulted in a several sets of proceedings before the competent domestic authorities.

1. Criminal proceedings

By a first-instance judgment of the Opatija Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Opatiji ) of 23 November 1988 , D.D. was convicted of the offence of unlawfully acquiring possessions by not respecting co-owners ’ shares in the house established by the competent domestic authorities. He was sentenced to two months ’ imprisonment suspended for one year. There is no information about the finality of this judgment.

On 27 December 1989 by the first-instance judgment of the Opatija Municipal Court D.D. was convicted of the offence of causing bodily injuries to the first applicant on 30 March and 6 June 1989. He was sentenced to a fine. There is no information about the finality of this judgment.

On 1 December 2008 the Opatija Municipal Court convicted D.D. of the offence of illegal construction carried out between 4 and 11 June 2007, and sentenced him to four months ’ imprisonment suspended for two years. This judgment became final on 17 April 2009.

On 21 July 2010 the Opatija Municipal Court convicted D.D, of making serious threats to the first applicant on 28 July 2008, and fined him with 1,693 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately EUR 230). On appeal, the Rijeka County Court ( Županijski sud u Rijeci ) on 23 March 2011 upheld the judgment but reversed the sentence to four months ’ imprisonment suspended for three years.

On 28 February 2011 the Rijeka Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Rijeci ) convicted D.D. and his partner M.D. of the offences of making serious threats to the first applicant on 14 April 2008 and to the applicants ’ son on 27 May 2008. D.D. was fined with HRK 1,739 (approximately EUR 230) and M.D. was fined with HRK 1,434.78 (approximately EUR 190). On appeal, the Rijeka County Court on 9 May 2012 upheld the judgment but reversed M.D. ’ s sentence suspending it for one year.

On 26 July 2012 the Rijeka Municipal Court convicted D.D. of the offence of illegal construction carried out between 3 September and the beginning of October 2010, and fined him with HRK 1,207 (approximately EUR 160). It appears that this judgment became final on an unspecified date in 2012.

2. Administrative proceedings

On 20 March 2000 D.D. ’ s first wife M. Đ . was granted a construction permit to carry out a reconstruction work on their part of the house. On appeal, on 20 September 2000 this decision was quashed on the grounds that for the reconstruction at issue it was necessary to obtain a permission of other co-owners, which had not been done.

On 11 September 2003 the construction inspector of the Ministry of Ecology and Construction ( Ministarstvo za š tite okoli š a i prostornog ure đ enja ; hereinafter: the “Ministry of Construction”) found that certain construction installations on D.D. ’ s part of the house had to be removed. This decision became final and enforceable on 11 September 2004.

On 15 September 2004 the construction inspector of the Ministry of Construction again found that certain other reconstruction work carried out by D.D. had been contrary to the relevant law and ordered him to restore the previous state of construction. This was confirmed on appeal on 15 July 2005. These decisions were made enforceable on 21 July 2005.

On 3 and 10 July 2007 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Construction that D.D. was carrying out some further construction work which threatened the integrity and safety of their part of the house.

An on-site inspection of the construction inspector was carried out on 22 January 2008.

Meanwhile, between February and August 2008 the applicants complained to various officials of the Ministry of Construction about non-enforcement of the final and enforceable decisions ordering the reparation of their house.

On 15 October 2012 the applicants complained about their situation to the Ministry of Culture ( Ministarstvo kulture ) arguing that there was a serious threat to the stability of their house which was located in the historical city centre of Opatija.

The Ministry of Culture replied on 26 October 2012, noting that D.D. ’ s construction work could be considered devastation of the object and as such had to be repaired.

In January 2013 the applicants complained to the competent body of the Primorsko-Goranska County ( Primorsko-goranska ž upanija ; hereinafter: the “County Administration”) arguing that the construction static of their house was endangered and urging them to take the necessary measures.

In the meantime, on 3 May 2013 the Ministry of Culture dismissed D.D. ’ s request to legalise his construction work on the house on the grounds that the construction work had not been carried out in compliance with the relevant conservation standards and principles.

The applicants further complained to the Ministry of Construction on 21 August 2013 arguing that there was a fear that their house might collapse because its construction static had been disturbed.

On 18 September 2013 the Ministry of Culture urged the Ministry of Construction to take the necessary measures in the applicants ’ case. It stressed that the construction static had been seriously disturbed and that there was a real and immanent risk to the applicants ’ lives and property.

The applicants again urged the Ministry of Construction to take the necessary measures on 15 December 2013.

On 16 January 2014 the Ministry of Construction invited the applicants and the Ministry of Culture to submit the relevant evidence that the construction static had been disturbed.

The applicants complied with this order and on 30 January 2014 submitted an expert report of 29 January 2014 attesting that the construction static of the building had been disturbed and that there was a real threat that, in case of an earthquake, it could collapse.

On 5 February 2014 the Ministry of Construction expressed its doubts as to the findings of the expert and requested the applicants to submit evidence that he was a certified expert.

On 13 February 2014 the applicants replied to the request of the Ministry of Construction that the attitude of the competent authorities, which had not been responding properly to their complaints for a number of years, represented a form of their further harassment.

On an unspecified date, the applicants provided the Ministry of Construction with a letter of the Rijeka County Court attesting that the expert who had drafted the report had been an officially appointed court expert.

3. Civil proceedings

On 11 November 1996 the Opatija Municipal Court ordered D.D. to remove certain installations interfering with the second applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions. This judgment became final on 2 February 1997.

On 9 September 2008 the applicants lodged a civil action in the Opatija Municipal Court against D.D. asking it to order D.D. to remove further installations damaging the integrity of the house.

On 3 October 2008 the Opatija Municipal Court invited the applicants to amend their civil action by indicating the value of their claim. This request was not served on the applicants but was made public on the courts notice-board on the grounds that allegedly the second applicant had failed to collect it from her mailbox at that court.

On 17 February 2009 the Opatija Municipal Court found that the applicants had not complied with the order and discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that in such a case it was presumed that the civil action had been withdrawn. For an unspecified reason this decision was also not served on the applicants.

On 21 April 2010 the applicants urged the Opatija Municipal Court to hold a hearing but only to learn that the proceedings had been discontinued.

On 5 July 2010 the applicants asked the Opatija Municipal Court reinstatement of the proceedings on the grounds that they had not been properly served with that court ’ s decisions.

They received no reply.

4. The applicants other complaints

On 29 July 2012 the applicants complained to the Ministry of the Interior ( Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova ) about the manner in which the Opatija Police Station had been dealing with their complaints.

On 5 September 2012 the applicants received a reply by the Chief of the Primorsko-Goranska Police Department ( Policijska uprava Primorsko-goranska ) indicating that so far they had registered twelve police interventions concerning the applicants ’ problems with their neighbour and that the Opatija Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Opatiji ) had lodged four indictments against D.D. in the competent criminal courts. However, there was nothing indicating irregular or improper conduct of the police in handling the applicants ’ case. The applicants again complained to the Ministry of the Interior and on 24 October 2012 they received a reply from the internal control department endorsing the findings of the lower police units.

On 7 October 2012 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint before the Rijeka Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Rijeci ) against D.D. alleging his illegal construction.

On 17 October 2012 they received a reply of the Rijeka Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office indicating that the offence at issue had been finally adjudicated and that therefore there could be no new prosecution.

COMPLAINTS

The applic ants complain, under Article 8 and of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 , that the State authorities failed to afford them effective and adequate protection from the unlawful conduct of their neighbour .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the State authorities complied with their positive o bligations to secure respect for the applicants ’ private and family life and their home, as required under Articles 8 of the Convention?

2 . Has there been in the present case a violation of the applicants ’ ri ght to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant doc uments concerning the applicant s ’ case.