FIRST SECTION

Application no. 6525/13 Antica REMPEŠIĆ and Neven REMPESIC against Croatia lodged on 4 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Antica Rempešić and Mr Neven Rempesic , are Croatian nationals, who were born in 1931 and 1954 respectively and live in Kraljevica . They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Bengin , a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant ’ s respective husband and father, I.R., was a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Rijeka. In 1976 he was appointed a captain of the Kraljevica port and exchanged the flat in Rijeka for one in Kraljevica , with the consent of the relevant authorities. The flat in Kraljevica was a so called “flat for official purposes” given to use to a person who held the position of a captain of the Kraljevica port. It was allocated to I.R. by an agreement made between him as a holder of a specially protected tenancy and the Rijeka Port Administration as the giver of the flat.

On 3 June 1991, the Parliament enacted the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) which regulates the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy. In general, the Act entitles the holder of a specially protected tenancy on a publicly-owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale.

However, all flats for official purposes were excluded from sale. Instead holders of specially protected tenancies on such flats had the right to purchase another flat if they had lodged a request to purchase the flat they occupied within the prescribed time limits, which had to be offered to them by the owner of the flat (usually the State itself of one of its bodies). Where the relevant authority would not comply with that obligation within the prescribed time-limit (which had been extended several times and the final deadline expired on 30 June 2003), a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat for official use was entitled to purchase that flat.

In February 1994 I.R. requested the owner of the flat he occupied to conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and himself as the buyer. The owner declined his request on the grounds that the flat in question was excluded from sale under the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act.

On 14 April 1994 I.R. brought a civil action in the Rijeka Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Rijeci ) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale. During the proceedings I.R. died and the applicants took over the proceedings.

On 7 November 2007 the Rijeka Municipal Court dismissed the applicants ’ claim on the following grounds. The Rules of Allocating Flats of the Rijeka Harbour Administration prescribed that the employees who occupied flats for official purposes could not acquire specially protected tenancies on such flats. On 11 1999 March the Government had adopted a list of State-owned flats not to be sold and the flat at issue was at that list.

This judgment was upheld by the Rijeka County Court on 12 March 2010.

The applicant ’ s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 28 February 2012.

Her subsequent constitutional complaint was also declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on 17 October 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they were not able to purchase the flat they occupy.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant ’ s claim to purchase the flat she occupies under favourable conditions under the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act “sufficiently established” to attract applicability to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, did the refusal by the national courts to grant her claim to purchase the flat at issue amount to an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? 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?]?