SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ZDJELAR v. CROATIA
(Application no. 58566/19)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 October 2024
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zdjelar v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
 Frédéric Krenc,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 58566/19) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 November 2019 by two Croatian nationals, Ms Cena Zdjelar and Mr Robert Zdjelar (“the applicants”), who were born in 1952 and 1974 respectively, live in Villingen‑Schwenningen and Dauphingen (Germany) respectively and were represented by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the right of access to a court and the right to property to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings and discrimination;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the applicants’ claim for compensation for unlawful sequestration of their flat, claim which was eventually dismissed because they had sued the local authorities and not the State. 2. The first applicant has lived in Germany since 1972 where her son (the second applicant) was born in 1974. In 1984 they bought a flat in Karlovac (Croatia), which they used during holidays. 3. In fall 1991, during the war in Croatia, a certain I.B. and his family, internally displaced persons, broke into and occupied the applicants’ flat. By a decision of 14 April 1992, the relevant authority of the Karlovac Township allocated the flat to that family for temporary use. That decision was set aside on 5 July 1996. 4. On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Administration of Certain Property Act (“the Sequestration Act”) entered into force. It provided that property situated in the previously occupied territories of Croatia and belonging to persons who had left Croatia after 17 October 1990 was to be sequestered – that is to say, taken into the care of and controlled by the State. It also provided that local authorities would take possession of such property and entitled their sequestration commissions to temporarily accommodate other persons in it. 5. By a decision of 27 September 1996, the Karlovac Township’s Sequestration Commission allocated the applicants’ flat for temporary use to a certain Ms Đ.V. who lived in an inadequate flat. 6. On 1 March 1999 the applicants applied for repossession of their flat. On 16 October 2000, the Karlovac Township Housing Commission set aside the decision of 27 September 1996 and ordered Đ.V. to vacate the flat. Since Đ.V. failed to do so, the Housing Commission instituted civil proceedings for her eviction. On 30 July 2001 the Commission handed the flat over to the applicants. 7. On 25 April 2002 the applicants brought a civil action in the Karlovac Municipal Court against the Karlovac Township seeking compensation for the damage sustained by unlawful disposals with their flat. They submitted that both decisions of 14 April 1992 and 27 September 1996 (see paragraphs 3 and 5 above) had been unlawful and that the Township was therefore liable both for the physical damage to the flat caused by the temporary occupants and for the lost rent. The Township replied that it was not liable for the damage sustained, without indicating who was. 8. During the proceedings the Municipal Court, at the applicants’ initiative, invited the State to intervene in the proceedings, which the State declined on 11 May 2009. 9. After a remittal, by a judgment of 27 May 2013, the Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ action. 10. Following an appeal by the applicants, on 8 January 2014 the Karlovac County Court overturned the first-instance judgment in part. It allowed their claim for the period between 5 July 1996 and 30 July 2001 (see paragraphs 3 and 6 above). The court held that the second decision allocating the applicants’ flat for temporary use dated 27 September 1996 had been unlawful because the town of Karlovac had never been occupied, the applicants had not left Croatia after 17 October 1990 nor had Đ.V. been eligible for accommodation in sequestered property (see paragraph 4 above). The Township was therefore together with the State jointly and severally liable for the damage sustained. The court at the same time upheld the first‑instance judgment in so far as it concerned the period between 14 April 1992 and 4 July 1996 finding that the initial decision of 14 April 1992 had been lawful (see paragraph 3 above). 11. On 17 February 2014 the Township paid the applicants HRK 240,163.89 (EUR 31,875.26) as the judgment debt. 12. The Township, but not the applicants, lodged an appeal on points of law. The applicants replied to it, but the Municipal Court did not forward their reply to the Supreme Court. 13. By a judgment of 24 June 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the County Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim for the period between 5 July 1996 and 30 July 2001. It held that, based on section 13 of the of State Administration System Act, the State was solely liable for the damage caused not only by its own bodies but also by the bodies of the local authorities in administrative matters conferred on them, it being understood that the State had conferred some of its powers under the Sequestration Act, such as possession of sequestered property and its allocation for temporary use, on the local authorities. Since the applicants only sued the Karlovac Township, their claim had to be dismissed. 14. On 18 April 2019 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint, and on 6 May 2019 notified their representative of its decision. 15. Meanwhile, the Karlovac Township brought a civil action for unjust enrichment against the applicants. By a judgment of 12 April 2017, which became final on 30 January 2020, the applicants were ordered to pay back the amount they had received on the basis of the County Court’s judgment of 8 January 2014 (see paragraphs 10-11 above). 16. Before the Court the applicants complained that the Supreme Court’s judgment dismissing their civil action on the ground that they had directed it against the Karlovac Township rather than against the State, had been in breach of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation