FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ARAMBAŠIN v. CROATIA
(Applications nos. 48981/17 and 49727/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
23 June 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Arambašin v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Erik Wennerström, President,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 48981/17 and 49727/17) 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the date indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik;
the decision of the French and Dutch Governments not to make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 31 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the applicants’ inability to use their flats or to collect an adequate rent from their tenants. 2. In particular, the applicants are the co-owners of two flats in Split with a surface area of 72 and 126.50 square metres occupied by protected lessees (zaštićeni najmoprimci). Under the Lease of Flats Act, which has been in force since 5 November 1996, such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures, such as the duty of landlords to enter into a lease of indefinite duration; the payment of protected rent, the amount of which is set by the Government and is significantly lower than the market rent; and better protection against termination of the lease. 3. In 2009 the applicants brought a civil action seeking eviction of the protected lessees and the members of their households. On 18 May 2012 their action was dismissed by a judgment of the first-instance court, which was upheld on 10 January 2013 by a judgment of the second-instance court. 4. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija), but the Supreme Court declared it inadmissible ratione valoris, whereupon they lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision. 5. On 11 January 2017 the Constitutional Court declared their constitutional complaint inadmissible finding that the case did not raise a constitutional issue. 6. Before the Court the applicants complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that they had been unable to use their flats or charge adequate rent.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation