FIRST SECTION

Application no. 50101/12 Ivanka BIKIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 July 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ivanka Bikić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb . She is rep resented before the Court by Mr D. Margaretić , a lawyer practising in Zagreb .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was employed with the socially-owned company S. All employees of S. paid contributions to a housing fund in the amount of 3% of their monthly salaries.

On 31 October 1988 the company S. granted the applicant a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Zagreb , with the right to occupy it together with her husband and two daughters. The applicant moved into the flat and has been living there ever since.

It appears that this decision was challenged by other employees and quashed by the Zagreb Basic Court of Associated Labour.

On 27 March 1990 the Housing Commission of the company S. adopted a priority list for distribution of flats. The applicant was the first on the list. On 23 April 1990 the Workers ’ Council of the company S. approved the above-mentioned priority list.

On 9 and 15 May 1990, respectively, two other employees of the company S. brought an action in the competent Court, asking that the priority list be declared null and void. Later on the competence in the matter was transferred to the Zagreb Municipal Court which on 3 February 1999 dismissed the claims.

On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ), which regulated the sale of publicly owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy.

The applicant requested the owner of the flat to conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and herself as the buyer. The owner declined the request. On 23 June 2004 the Zagreb County Court altered the judgment of 3 February 1999 so as to declare the actions inadmissible on the ground that the priority list could not have been challenged before a court of law.

On 26 September 2005 the applicant brought a civil action against the City of Zagreb , which in the meantime had become the owner of the flat she occupied, seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale of the flat in question.

The claim was dismissed on 18 June 2007 on the ground that the applicant had not acquired the protected tenancy on the flat in question since the priority list was not a decision on granting protected tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act.

This judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court on 8 April 2007 and by the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant part of the Housing Act (Official Gazette nos. 51/1985, 42/1986, 22/1992 and 70/1993) reads:

Section 59

“A specially protected tenancy is acquired on the date of moving into the flat on the basis of a final decision allocating the flat or on another valid legal basis, unless otherwise provided by this Act.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of fairness of the civil proceedings whereby she sought a judgment in lieu of a sale contract as regards the flat she occupies.

She further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that her right to property was violated.

Finally, she complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she had no effective remedy at her disposal as regards her Convention complaints.

QUESTIONS 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 applicabili ty 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) ?

The Government are invited to submit all relevant case-files and other relevant documents concerning the granting the applicant the right to occupy the flat in question and challenging of any such decision before the national authorities.