FIRST SECTION

Application no. 74936/12 Zvonimir PETOLAS against Croatia lodged on 19 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zvonimir Petolas , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Zagreb .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 22 February 1973 the applicant was granted a specially protected tenancy on a publicly-owned flat in Zagreb , by an agreement concluded between the applicant and “ Stanoinvest ”, a company entitled to allocate flats to the holders of specially protected tenancies. He moved into the flat with his wife.

On 7 June 1984 the Novi Zagreb Municipality ( Općina Novi Zagreb ) brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ), seeking the eviction of the applicant and his wife on the ground that they had occupied the flat without any legal basis. In the course of the proceedings the claim in respect of the applicant ’ s wife was withdrawn.

O n 3 June 1991 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.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a counterclaim, seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale.

On 5 December 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Court ordered the applicant ’ s eviction on the ground that he had no legal basis for occupying the flat in question. It also dismissed the applicant ’ s counter-claim. This judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) on 26 January 2010 and on the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 9 March 2011.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 1 March 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the assessment of facts by the national courts.

He also complains that he has been deprived of his home.

He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy for his Convention complaints.

Lastly, he complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

In particular, was the applicant employed and contributed to a housing fund of his employer or any other housing fund?

The Government are invited to submit two copies of all relevant case-files.