Communicated on 24 March 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43777/13 Nikola VRZIĆ and Mila VRZIC against Croatia lodged on 10 June 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Nikola Vrzić and Ms Mila Vrzić , are Croatian nationals who were born in 1955 and live in Poreč . They are represented before the Court by Mr Z. Ilić , a lawyer practising in Poreč .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 5 February 2009 the applicants and their company M.N. entered into an agreement with M. and his company E. By virtue of that agreement the applicants acknowledged their debt of 580,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) to M. and their company ’ s debt of HRK 180,000 to company E. In order to secure the overall debt, the applicants used their house as collateral, allowing M. to register a charge on it. The applicants and their company undertook an obligation to pay their outstanding debts by 1 May 2009.

On 20 October 2009 M. and his company E. instituted enforcement proceedings before the Poreč Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Poreču ) against the applicants, seeking the judicial sale of their house. They argued that the applicants had failed to pay their debt to M., while the company M.N. had managed to pay only a part of its debt to the company E.

On 17 November 2009 the Poreč Municipal Court granted that request and issued an enforcement order against the applicants. The enforcement order became final on 17 December 2009.

On 11 December 2009 the Poreč Municipal Court registered the enforcement order on the applicants ’ house in the land register.

On 13 January 2011 bank P. instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicants before the Poreč Municipal Court, seeking the judicial sale of their house. They argued that the applicants had failed to make payments in respect of a loan agreement of 14 February 2006.

On 24 January 2011 the Poreč Municipal Court granted that request and issued an enforcement order against the applicants. The enforcement order became final on 31 March 2011.

On 2 April 2012 the Poreč Municipal Court granted title of ownership of the applicants ’ house to M., on condition that he paid HRK 821,040 as the purchase price. The applicants appealed against that decision, arguing that the judicial sale was disproportionate, as an expert witness had valued their house at HRK 2,463,092.48. They also argued that the Municipal Court had failed to comply with the provisions of the Enforcement Act, which states that courts shall respect the dignity of debtors subject to enforcement and shall make the enforcement process as humane as possible.

On 28 December 2012 the Pula County Court ( Županijski sud u Puli ) dismissed the applicants ’ appeal. It found that the applicants ’ house was to be sold at a second public auction for more than one-third of its value, that the first public auction had been unsuccessful, and that M. was the only bidder. In the County Court ’ s view, the sale of the applicants ’ house was in accordance with the Enforcement Act.

On 31 January 2013 the Poreč Municipal Court entered M. ’ s title of ownership of the applicants ’ house in the land register.

On 20 February 2013 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Pula County Court, relying on section 382(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. They argued that the actual value of their house was around HRK 5,000,000, and that their house should have been exempted from enforcement as it was meeting their basic human needs.

On the same day, the applicants lodged a request with the Poreč Municipal Court for a stay of the enforcement.

On 22 February 2013 the Poreč Municipal Court declared the applicants ’ appeal on points of law inadmissible. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:

“The appeal on points of law ... of the debtors subject to enforcement is hereby declared inadmissible ...

Section 12 of the Enforcement Act ... provides that in enforcement proceedings ... an appeal on points of law is allowed only if based on section 382 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

As this is not the case here ... the same decision was made as in the operative part of the original decision.”

On the same day the Poreč Municipal Court declared the applicants ’ request for adjournment of the enforcement inadmissible, arguing that they had failed to meet the statutory conditions for adjournment.

On 8 March 2013 the Croatian Electricity Company ( Hrvatska Elektroprivreda , hereinafter “HEP” ) cut off the applicants ’ electricity at M. ’ s request. The applicants immediately requested the Poreč Municipal Court to issue an interim measure, prohibiting M. from cutting off electricity and water and from making alterations to the house, ordering HEP to reconnect the electricity, and authorising them to keep the house until the enforcement proceedings were complete. The Poreč Municipal Court granted their request in part, and on the same day issued an interim measure as requested in respect of M. and HEP. The applicants ’ third request was dismissed.

On 6 June 2013 the Poreč Municipal Court held a hearing for the division of proceeds ( dioba kupovnine ) .

On 17 September 2013 the Poreč Municipal Court ordered the eviction of the applicants. On 21 October 2013 the Municipal Court scheduled the eviction of the applicants for 13 December 2013, ordering the court bailiff to execute the eviction.

It appears that three other people live in the applicant ’ s household: their two sons and a daughter-in-law.

B. Re levant domestic law

1. Enforcement Act

The relevant part of the Enforcement Act ( Ovršni zakon , Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia , nos. 57/1996, 29/1999, 42/2000, 173/2003, 194/2003, 151/2004, 88/2005, 121/2005 and 6720/08) provided as follows:

Section 12

“(1) In enforcement proceedings ... only an appeal on points of law based upon section 382 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act is allowed ...”

Section 12 0

“By sale of the real estate the enforcement debtor loses the right of possession of the real property and must deliver it to the buyer promptly after the service of the decision on delivering the real property to the buyer, if not otherwise provided by law or by an agreement with the buyer.”

2. Civil Procedure Act

The relevant part of section 382 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nos. 4/1977, 36/1977 (corrigendum), 36/1980, 69/1982, 58/1984, 74/1987, 57/1989, 20/1990, 27/1990 and 35/1991, and the Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 53/1991, 91/1992, 58/1993, 112/1999, 88/2001, 117/2003, 88/2005, 2/2007, 84/2008, 123/2008, 57/2011, 148/2011 and 25/2013), as in force at the material time, provide as follows:

“... parties to proceedings may lodge an appeal on points of law against a second-instance judgment where the outcome of a dispute depends on the assessment of some substantive or procedural issue which is of importance in guaranteeing a consistent application of the law and the equality of citizens ...”

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, that their right to respect for their home has been violated.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the appli cants ’ right to respect for t he i r 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?

The Government is invited to submit to the Court the decision of the Poreč Municipal Court of 17 September 2013 in the case Ovr-552/11 and any subsequent court decisions in that case file.