The Opposite
Inutility of Courts
Mistake of ECHR (ENGLISH)
Values, prices, costs
The Opposite
Lalic's Black Magic
Text of the message
Page 2

      Some former or nominal owners of seized property in Croatia maintain that they should get back (in integrum)  the seized apartments,  as well as any other property that was seized during former Yugoslavia (SFRJ),  regardless of Resolution 1096 - (see below!).  In contrast to what is written on other pages,  the explanations given on this page  do  not  contradict  the nominal-owners  demands.  So, I presume, the following can be accepted even by them, as well as anybody else.


      We shall not concern ourselves here  with explanations, given on other pages of this web-site, that it is wrong and unjustified to seize the property of tenantship-right holders in Croatia on the pretext of restituting the long-ago-seized property to original owners of private apartments.  (Some links to those pages are at the bottom of this page).

      Even if abolishing the tenantship right were justified, it is clear that the concern of the Croatian government and lawmakers has not been the justice or the respect for human rights, but, so far, they have only been interested in sparing the State money and seizing the property of either the owners or the tenantship-right holders.

      Namely, if they really cared about the right of ownership, and if that right were really more important than the tenantship right, then

      (1)  the nationalized and other apartments would have been restituted to original owners  (if this were not contrary to Resolution 1096, etc.);

      (2)  the tenantship rights,  if given to tenants by original owners of their own free will,  would not have been seized (abolished);

      (3)  in conformity with Resolution 1096 of the PACE,  if a nominal private  owner  agrees  to  sell  an apartment to a tenantship-right holder, the State would buy such an apartment (at the market price) and sell it cheaply to the tenant. (In other words, the owner would get a just compensation from the State, and the tenanatship-right holder would keep his property, he would not be deprived and discriminated against).

      However, just the opposite has been done in the above-mentioned cases (1), (2) and (3)!  Also, according to a new proposal of the Cabinet, if a nominal owner agrees to sell an apartment, the discriminated families would have to pay five or ten times more(!) than other tenantship-right holders, who have obtained the right to cheaply buy the "social", nationalized, and even some private apartments (owned by other citizens)!!!  So, such a family would lose its property worth about 50.000 to 100.000 EUR (euros)!

      The Croatian lawmakers should correct the injustice immediately!   

      Here is a more-detailed text:



      (On this page I shall refrain from explaining how it follows from the Croatian Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights, Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, etc., that it is wrong and unjustified to have abolished (in 1996) the tenantship rights in the so-called "private occupied apartments".  You can read about that on other pages - see the links at the bottom of this page!)

      Some politicians, some representatives in the Sabor (=Croatian parliament), some judges of the Constitutional Court, and some others, pretend that they care very much for the original-owners' (or nominal-owners') rights  -  but in fact, what they have done is contrary to what they say!

      Still, let us SUPPOSE  THE  OPPOSITE,  let us try to imagine, in the following text, that they are sincerely trying to act justly!  Also,  SUPPOSE that it were justified  (although it is not!)  to seize the tenantship right from its holders (i.e. from the so-called "tenants")  in order to return the previously-seized property (i.e. apartments)  to the original owners.  

      Under those assumptions, it follows that

      (1)  the nationalized  apartments should be returned to the original owners.  However, they have NOT been returned  (because that would be contrary to the Constitution and Resolution 1096)!  On the contrary, by the Law on Renting Apartments, Article 48, (which is the same law(!)  by which the tenantship rights in the so-called "private occupied apartments" have been abolished in 1996)  some privately-owned apartments have been seized in 1996!!!  Namely, the private owners of these apartments were compelled, by this law in 1996, to cheaply sell their apartments to the "users" (who lived therein, even without a tenantship right),  for about one tenth of the market price -  i.e. in the same way as "public" and nationalized apartments had also been sold to the tenantship-right holders!  At the same time, the rest of us, who also live in the so-called private occupied apartments, are treated differently by being denied the same right to likewise buy our apartments! (On other pages this is called a discrimination).

      It follows from the above-mentioned assumptions, that (contrarily to the Resolution 1096 of the PACE!)  the lawmakers think that the right of ownership (even if it was previously seized) should be stronger than the tenantship right or any other-people's rights on the same apartment.  In other words, under those assumptions, the (previously-seized) right of ownership has the highest priority and must absolutely be restored. 

      However, it must not be forgotten, that

      (2)   the right of ownership comprises the owner's right to dispose of his property!  So, it is unjustified and unnecessary to seize a tenantship right in the case that it has been granted by the original owner himself,  of his own free will.  However, that truth has simply been ignored by the lawmakers!  It has also been ignored by the Constitutional Court of Croatia, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), although I had written about that to the Courts!  (Instead, somebody put falsehoods into a ECHR's decision!  E.g., although I wrote, in my application, that I had the tenantship right, which I had been given by the original owner of her own free will, it was falsely asserted in the Court's decision that I had written the opposite! Etc.).

      (3)   About 1996 and later many nominal owners of the so-called "private occupied apartments"  agreed  to sell such apartments at a price of about 30 percent of the market value of the apartment (although a few of them asked for a higher price).  In such cases, obviously, it would be just  and in conformity with the Resolution 1096,  that the tenantship-right holders pay for these apartments about 10 percent of the price (by installments, just as those in other apartments had paid too), and the rest should be paid by the State as a compensation.  However,  this has also been ignored  by the Croatian lawmakers(!),  although there is no honest or just reason why, in such cases, the Resolution 1096 of the PACE should not be respected,  i.e. why the State should not give compensations to the original owners, so that the tenantship-right holders can keep the value of their tenantship rights by means of  buying the apartments cheaply!  (Note:  Para 10  of Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1996) says that a just material compensation should be awarded to original owners in cases where it is not possible to restitute the previously-seized property without violating the rights of current owners or tenants).

      The Croatian lawmakers, allegedly, did not want to compel  the nominal owners to accept compensations instead of getting back the seized  apartments;  but, obviously, in cases where the nominal owners agree, the compensations should  be granted to them,  and the tenantship-right holders should get the right to cheaply buy these apartments  in the same way as the "public", nationalized, and even some private apartments have also been bought! (See (1) above!) If a tenantship-right holder is denied this right, he is discriminated against  and deprived of his property worth about 50.000 to 100.000 EUR (euros)!


      In my case, the today's nominal owner of the apartment in which I live (who was entered into the land registers after the original-owner's death in 1987)  offered in November of 2002  to sell the apartment to me  at a price which is near the market value.  I wrote immediately to the government (the Sabor, the Cabinet, the Assembly of the City of Zagreb, and others)  and asked that the State pay about 90 percent of the price, while I should pay about ten percent (just as other tenantship-right holders had paid for their apartments too).

      However, I have only received some answers saying that there was no legal ground for granting the money, although they would like to help if they could.

      But that "legal ground" is just the point!  That is just the government's and the lawmakers' fault!  The lawmakers should have prescribed such a legal ground,  they should have stipulated in the Law on Renting Apartments (1996) that a tenantship-right holder in a so-called "private occupied apartment" should be allowed to cheaply buy his apartment (for 10 percent of the value, as others had bought too)  in the case  that the nominal owner agrees to accept the compensation from the State!  They have not made such a provision in the law in 1996,  but  they can make it now,  and they should do it soon!  They could have made it at any time since 1996,  but they have been unjustifiably waiting and delaying it  for more than six years, up to this date!

      However, the Cabinet has recently prepared a proposal, by which we  -  i.e. some 7000 families who are arbitrarily and deliberately chosen to be discriminated against  -  should pay for our apartments (if nominal owners agree to sell them)  perhaps five or ten times as much as other tenantship-right holders have paid,  who had obtained the right  (by the laws, from 1991 to 1996)  to cheaply buy the "social", nationalized, and even some private apartments (owned by other citizens!)  at the price of about ten percent of the market value!   The government and the lawmakers are unjustifiably and unnecessarily discriminating against my family and myself (and against others too), and they intend to deprive me of more than 100.000 EUR (euros)!


Lalic's Black Magic