FIRST SECTION

Application no. 24546/09 Khouri ZAHI against Croatia lodged on 22 April 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Khouri Zahi , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Zagreb . He is represented before the Court by Mr Ž. Peroković , 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.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s wife was allocated a flat in Zagreb for her use.

On 3 March 1998 the applicant bought the flat from its owner, the Zagreb Municipality , under favourable conditions owing to his status as a person with disability sustained during the Homeland War in Croatia .

A copy of the contract was submitted for approval by the State Attorney ’ s Office. On 4 March 1998 approval was given.

On 28 September 1999 the Zagreb Municipality State Attorney ’ s Office brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court, seeking annulment of the sale contract in question. They argued that the applicant could not have obtained the ownership of the flat because it had been given to his wife, her mother and three siblings, and not to him. The Municipal Court accepted these argu ments and in its judgment of 18 February 2004 annulled the sale contract. It was upheld by the Zagreb County Court on 15 February 2005.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitution al complaint was dismissed on 1 October 2008.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , Official Gazette no. 27/1991 with further amendments) regulates the conditions of sale of flats let under specially protected tenancies. The relevant part of this Act reads:

Section 21

“The seller shall submit the sale contract for approval to the competent State Attorney within eight days.

Where the State Attorney finds that the statutory conditions for entering such a contract have not been met or that the price stipulated in it is lower that the one established by this Act, he or she shall disagree with the sale.

Where the State Attorney finds after the sale contract had been concluded that statutory conditions for entering such contract had not been met, he or she shall seek the annulment of that contract within one year after the contract had been concluded.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he and his family (a wife, their four children and the wife ’ s her mother and siblings) have lost their home and would be forced to leave the flat.

He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was violated.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has an eviction order been issued against the applicant? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his home?

2. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?