Information Note on the Court’s case-law 61

February 2004

Cvijetić v. Croatia - 71549/01

Judgment 26.2.2004 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Reasonable time

Adequacy of measures taken to enforce an eviction order: violation

Facts : The applicant was the holder of a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Split. In 1994 she was forcibly thrown out of the flat by I., who moved in. The applicant s uccessfully instituted proceedings against I. and in 1995 obtained a court order to have him evicted. As I. did not comply with the order to vacate the flat, the applicant applied for the execution of the decision. Subsequently family B. moved into the fla t. The eviction was adjourned several times, on one occasion due to the presence of war veterans obstructing the eviction and on another because of the failure of a physician to assist in the eviction of family B. Meanwhile, in 2000, the applicant bought t he flat and became its owner. The court order was enforced in March 2002. The applicant complains about the length of the enforcement proceedings to regain possession of her flat, as well as of a violation of her right to respect for her home.

Law : Articl e 6 § 1 – It had taken around eight years for the applicant to regain possession of her flat, of which four years, four months and fifteen days were taken into consideration by the Court in examining the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings (the Convention having entered into force of in respect of Croatia in November 1997). Although the domestic authorities had not taken any legislative measures to postpone or prevent the execution of the judgment ordering eviction, the delays in carrying out ex ecution were entirely attributable to them.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 8 – The deficiencies of the legal system in overcoming obstruction of the execution of the judgment created or enabled a situation where the applicant was prevented fr om enjoying her home for a long period of time, in breach of the State’s positive obligations under this Article.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros under all heads of damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click her e for the Case-Law Information Notes