Cosic and Paulic v Croatia - 43/09 [2011] ECHR 1271 (8 June 2011)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

(Application No. 28261/06 and 3572/06, judgments of 15/01/2009 final on 05/06/2009

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home in that the domestic courts ordered them to vacate flats owned by the state, in breach of any procedural safeguards in proceedings for their eviction (violations of Article 8) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant in the case of Ćosić the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

These cases concern disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home in that the domestic courts ordered them to vacate flats owned by the state, in breach of any procedural safeguards in proceedings for their eviction (violations of Article 8).

The Court noted that the domestic courts’ findings were limited to the conclusion that under the applicable law the applicants had lost all legal entitlement to occupy the flats and that they therefore had to vacate them. While recognising the applicants’ difficult situation, the domestic courts thus failed to analyse the proportionality of the measure to be applied against the applicants despite their duty not to interpret or apply the provisions of domestic law in a manner incompatible with the obligations flowing from the Convention.

In the Ćosić case, the Ministry of Defence decided not to institute enforcement proceedings to compel the applicant to vacate her flat. Under a decision on the sale of flats owned by the Republic of Croatia and managed by the Ministry of Defence adopted by the government on 02/04/2009 (published in the Official Gazette, No. 43/09), the applicant could apply to buy the flat at issue at the latest by 08/04/2010, thus enjoying a right of pre-emption.

In the Paulić case, the applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction. The authorities withdrew their enforcement motion in this case.

The Municipal Court in PoZega subsequently terminated the eviction proceedings on 30/11/2010. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

In order to prevent similar violations, on 22/12/2010 the Croatian Constitutional Court rendered a binding decision (No. U-III-46/2007) and found expressis verbis that any interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possession should comply with the principles of rule of law, public interest and proportionality. In this respect, the Constitutional Court stressed the obligation of domestic courts to implement the Convention. Since this change of case-law is binding on all courts in the country, it is expected that this measure should be adequate to prevent similar violations.

In view of the direct effect of the Convention in Croatia, publication of the Court’s judgments and their dissemination to the relevant courts should contribute to preventing similar violations. In this context it should be noted that the Court’s judgments have been translated into Croatian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.mprh.hr). They have been sent out to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Ministry of Defence and to the domestic courts involved in the cases. The judgments are also published in a journal concerning the Court’s case-law.

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Croatia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
Ćosić No. 28261/06	-	2000 EUR	369.97 EUR	2369.97 EUR
Paid on 24/07/2009

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Cosic and Paulic v Croatia - 43/09 [2011] ECHR 1271 (8 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1271.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1271