Communicated on 14 April 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 2545/14 Nikola FRLAN against Croatia lodged on 29 December 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Nikola Frlan , is a Cr oatian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Zagreb.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 28 March 1996 the applicant entered into a loan agreement with bank Z. By virtue of that agreement the applicant borrowed 193,400 German marks (DEM). In order to secure the loan, he used his house as collateral, allowing bank Z. to register a charge against it.

On 6 November 2000 bank Z. instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ), seeking the seizure and sale of his house. It argued that the applicant had failed to pay back the loan.

On 14 February 2001 the Zagreb Municipal Court granted bank Z. ’ s request and issued an enforcement order against the applicant. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the enforcement order had been declared invalid and that the interest rate on the loan had been miscalculated.

On 16 May 2006 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as being without merit, finding that the statutory conditions for enforcement had been met.

On 8 March 2011 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ( Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu ) held a second public auction for the sale of the house. The only bidder was a M. The Municipal Court granted title to the applicant ’ s house to M., on condition that he paid HRK 471,000 as the purchase price, which was half of the estimated market value. This decision became final on 30 March 2011, after M. paid the purchase price.

On 20 May 2011 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ordered that house be transferred to M. No appeal lay against that decision.

On 21 January 2013 the applicant requested a stay of the enforcement proceedings until the outcome of the criminal proceedings he had instituted against his former representative was known.

On an unspecified date the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court scheduled the applicant ’ s eviction for 28 February 2013.

On 13 February 2013 the applicant requested a stay of the enforcement proceedings until his dispute with bank Z was settled. He argued that his daughter would have to interrupt her studies in the middle of the academic year and that she was a carer for other members of the household.

On 28 February 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court declared the applicant ’ s application for a stay of the enforcement proceedings inadmissible, arguing that the statutory conditions for an adjournment were not met and that he had lost his right to possession of the house when he had received the decision of 20 May 2011. In addition, the Municipal Court referred to a statement by the applicant to the court bailiff of 19 November 2012 by which he had promised to move out of the house before 1 February 2013 without lodging further appeals.

On 1 March 2013 the judge in charge of the enforcement proceedings held a meeting with the parties ’ lawyers, the court bailiff and the police. The applicant ’ s representatives were informed that there would be no further announcements regarding the eviction date, but that it would not take place before 11 March 2013. They were also informed that there would be no further adjournments, and the police were instructed to prepare themselves better.

On 6 March 2013 the applicant applied to the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court for the withdrawal from the case of the judge in charge of the enforcement proceedings, arguing that he was preparing a “secret eviction”.

On 2 April 2013 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court refused that request.

On 9 April 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court scheduled the eviction of the applicants for 16 April 2013, ordering the court bailiff to execute the eviction. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision.

On 16 April 2013 the applicant and his family were evicted from the house.

On 20 June 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible as it did not have jurisdiction.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against M. before the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, seeking the determination of his ownership of a garage and some land adjacent to the house. He argued that in the enforcement proceedings M. had bought only the house and not the garage and the land.

On 29 November 2013 the Zagreb Civil Municipal Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim, arguing that M. had bought the real property in its entirety in good faith at the court ’ s public auction.

On 9 December 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment, which is still pending.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that his right to respect for his home has been violated.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

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