Home | Davalac stana | Sukob interesa | Autori ovih tekstova | The fallacy of the ECHR | Zabluda Europskog suda | Treba izmijeniti zakon | Pismo SUSH-a ECHR-u | Lawyer's statement - English | Ugovor sa vlasnicom | Ugovor sa SIZ-om stanovanja
Pismo SUSH-a ECHR-u



Jurjevska 12

10000 Zagreb


Our Ref: SUSH/v2d/07/11/05

Tel/Fax: +385 1 4668 217

Your Ref:

E-mail: anthony-john.dawe@zg.t-com.hr


14 November 2005

Prof. Dr. Luzius Wildhaber


European Court of Human Rights

Council of Europe

67075 Strasbourg-Cedex



Dear Mr. President,


Appended below is a letter addressed to you that we have received from Dr. Branko Sorić, for your most urgent attention. We earnestly request that this case, a legitimate grievance, be reviewed at the earliest possible juncture.


Several thousand former holders of occupancy/tenancy rights have been deprived of their property by the State of Croatia by its discriminatory policy. We had hoped that the ECHR would intervene on their behalf, but to our great disappointment neither the ECHR nor the Constitutional Court of Croatia have seen fit to protect our human rights and fundamental freedoms, our occupancy/tenancy rights having been abolished by the Government of the Republic of Croatia in 1996, a decision which the Constitutional Court of Croatia saw fit to uphold in 1999.


Moreover, as you will see, Dr. Sorić complains in his letter that in his specific case he has been additionally damaged by the ECHR, rather than having received its just support.


Further correspondence on the matter of the abolition of occupancy/tenancy rights, and on its appalling consequences over the past ten years, and which continue as we write, will be dispatched to you in due course. You will be  aware that Edward McMillan-Scott MEP has been kept abreast by us, since he visited Zagreb on 1 August 2005, of the iniquitous situation that has obtained in the Republic of Croatia since 1996.


Respectfully yours,


Professor Volga Vukelja-Dawe                            Anthony J. Dawe

President                                                              Vice-President

Alliance of Tenants’ Associations                       Alliance of Tenants’ Associations

of Croatia                                                              of Croatia



From:  Dr. med. Branko Sorić ,  Vlaška 84 , 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

             Fax: +385 1 4623 436     E-mail: branko.soric@zg.t-com.hr                    


To:   Prof. dr. Luzius Wildhaber, President of the

         European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

         Council of Europe,  67075 Strasbourg-Cedex, France

         Fax: +33 (0)3 88 41 27 30       [ webmaster@echr.coe.int (?)]             

                November 8, 2005

Dear Sir,

      To my letters, sent to you personally since 2000, I have never received any reply from you.  (I have only received some brief letters from the ECHR's Registry without any adequate response to the problems). I am even not quite sure if my letters have ever reached you. Therefore, here is another letter that, I hope, will be sent to you via the "Savez udruga stanara Hrvatske" (SUSH) (a Croatian organization of unconstitutionally-deprived occupancy-right holders), as they have proposed to do, and I shall also send it directly to you. (I am not a member of  SUSH  or any other organizations). The views and statements contained in this letter are mine, as well as of other-people, but the SUSH may declare how much these views coincide with theirs.     


      As I wrote before, there have happened unexplained mistakes or, perhaps, deliberate wrongdoings at the European Court of Human Rights, which should have been corrected long ago, because  THEY  CAUSE  ILLEGAL  DAMAGE  to me, my family, and others.

      This is not a complaint regarding the conclusions or decisions (considered as "final") reached by the ECHR's chambers of judges, but  THIS  IS  A  DEMAND  TO  STOP,   PREVENT  AND  CORRECT  ILLEGAL  (POSSIBLY  CRIMINAL)  ACTS,  PERPETRATED  BY  PERSONS  EMPLOYED  AT  THE  ECHR  (whether judges or others),  like, e.g., these:

      (1) The Court's decision  No. 43447 / 98  contains  UNTRUE statements (FALSIFICATIONS)  that are harmful to me and my family. 

      (2) The judge Nina Vajic, as a member of the Court's chamber, has taken part in considering cases in which she has a personal interest, which is forbidden by the Rules of Court (Rule 28).                                   


      (Ad 1):   In my letters of August 25, 2000, and later, I asked you for an explanation and correction of the untrue statements in the decision No. 43447 / 98  and I hoped and expected that you would take all the necessary steps in order to correct those untruths, and also to investigate and find out who is responsible or guilty of that, etc.

      Namely, in the Court's decision it is  UNTRULY  asserted  (i.e. illegally, perhaps criminally  FABRICATED!)  that my application contained information about my having been a "lessee" in an apartment, while  INDEED  I  WROTE  in my application that my mother and I have had the permanent and inheritable  "TENANT'S  RIGHT"  (i.e. "stanarsko pravo" or "occupancy right") which was a so-called "personal ownership" on the flat, and it was also named "divided ownership" by law experts;  etc.    

      [ REMARK:  The ECHR, in its decisions, wrongly and misleadingly used the expression "specially protected tenancy" instead of "occupancy right" or "stanarsko pravo", but in my case the ECHR groundlessly denied even my "specially protected tenancy" (i.e. my "stanarsko pravo") and wrongly said that it was a "lease"!  All of us, who are holders of the permanent and inheritable "stanarsko pravo", have always been legal (de iure and de facto) "90-percent" owners of our apartments, although this special type of ownership has not been registered in land registers (cadastral books), which is in accordance with the laws of former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and also of the Republic of Croatia until 1996 ].

      I have written in my application that I had this "tenant's right" (i.e. "stanarsko pravo"  or "occupancy right") forever by the free will of the original owner.  

 I  HAVE  NOT  WRITTEN  in my application that I had been a "lessee"  (which is  FALSELY alleged in the ECHR's decision)!  


      It would take too much space to explain everything completely in this letter, but what is important is this:

      The "stanarsko pravo" is not a lease  and  IT  IS  NOT  CALLED  A  "LEASE"  IN  OTHER  ECHR's  DECISIONS  (but it is called "specially protected tenancy"),  as distinguished from the decision in my case, where the ECHR wrongly said that I had written in my application, that my mother and I had been "lessees", etc.!   The false statements in the Court's decision in my case (No. 43447 / 98)  have not only contributed to the wrong rejection of my application, but are also harmful to me and my family in other ways, because such untrue statements are slanderous, and can also turn out to be fraudulent. Namely, some day they can be abused as would-be "proofs" by some dishonest persons in order to illegally damage me or may family by casting false doubts on my  stanarsko pravo.   (Some persons had indeed attempted similar frauds, more than 20 years ago. We have thwarted these illegal, criminal, fraudulent attempts by means of court proceedings, but we know from our experience that there is always a real danger of such persons and their frauds.  I can give details to courts or others who may have legal and justified interest in them).  Besides, if I were a "lessee", my family and myself would not even have the rights of "protected tenants" prescribed by the Law on Renting Apartments in 1996 after the abolishment of  stanarsko pravo !   So, obviously, the untrue statements in the ECHR's decision have to be corrected, because they are harmful to us, and can be even more harmful in the future.     


      The ECHR's decision  No. 43447 / 98  contains these  UNTRUE  harmful statements:

      "The facts of the case,  AS  SUBMITTED  BY  THE  APPLICANT, may be summarized as follows. (......) the owner of the flat leased the flat to the applicant's mother. After the mother's death in 1987, the applicant prolonged the lease under his name. (......)  His constant position in regard to the flat has been that of a lessee. (....)  While (other) persons were holders of a specially protected tenancy (.....) the applicant has been ab initio a lessee of a privately-owned flat, where his position was dependent on the will of the owner." etc.  

      THAT  IS  NOT  TRUE  (but that is a falsification!);  -  I  HAVE  NOT  WRITTEN  THAT  IN  MY  APPLICATION!   I was  NOT  a lessee  and my position was not dependent on the will of the owner.  My mother did not die in 1987 but in 1982 (as I wrote), which is important because of the changes of the Law on Housing Relations in 1985 (whereby stanarsko pravo was to be acquired by decision instead of ugovor o korištenju stana); etc.!  If all that is just an accidental mistake, why has it not been corrected so far in spite of my warnings?!                         


      I have demanded since 2000, and  I  DEMAND  today too, that the untrue, illegal, slanderous, harmful Court's statements, contained in the above-mentioned decision (No. 43447 / 98), must be  CORRECTED !    I demand to receive a written correction, which must also be attached and visible in all places where that decision can be seen  (e.g. on the ECHR's web-pages and anywhere else)  so that everybody, who reads the untruths in the decision, can also be informed about the true facts, namely that I have never been a "lessee", nor I have declared myself to be a "lessee",  but I have been a holder of the "stanarsko pravo"  (i.e. "occupancy right", or "specially protected tenancy" as it is called by the ECHR), etc.                           

      Please let me know if you want more-detailed information, proofs, or anything else.  Some information can also be found at these web-addresses:

     http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/id3.html  (my letter to the President of the ECHR, August 25, 2000);      

     http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/id5.html    (my application from 1998, with some later remarks); 

     http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/index.html   (my report to the police (2001) in Croatian, which did not result in appropriate action of the public prosecutors. This shows that they do not do their work correctly.  They, and the whole Croatian judiciary, as well as the ECHR, do not seem to function properly. - See also other pages via links "Odgovor" and "Odgovor 2");      

     http://soric-b.tripod.com/summary/id4.html  (one of my subsequent letters to the European Court of Human Rights (and to others), of March 16, 2004  - in Croatian and English); 

     http://soric-b.tripod.com/dokumenti/  (Documents in Croatian proving that I have been a holder of the  stanarsko pravo  i.e. occupancy right, etc.)                          



      (Ad 2):    According to the information that I have obtained from some members of SUSH and others, the ECHR judge Prof. dr. Nina Vajić is a nominal (registered) owner of the so-called "private occupied" apartments and, moreover, she is a party in court proceedings against a holder of the stanarsko pravo in such an apartment. (I hope that SUSH will give you more information on this).  So, she has an interest in all such or similar cases.  Rule 28 says: "A judge may not take part in the consideration of any case if  (a) he or she has a personal interest in the case (......) (e) for any other reason, his or her independence or impartiality may legitimately be called into doubt" (Rules of Court, ECHR).



     After my mother's death in 1982, her occupancy right (stanarsko pravo) was transferred upon me by means of the "contract to use the apartment" ("ugovor o korištenju stana") that the original owner Mrs. Zora Rebula concluded with me on August 31, 1982., in accordance with the then-valid Law on Housing Relations from 1974.  Her signature on that contract has been officially certified and denoted with No. 7764.  This was fully in accordance with the laws, although such a contract was not obligatory. (In many other cases the occupancy right was legally transferred from a deceased holder of this right to a household member, without such a contract, and I don't know if the latter received any written decree or decision).

     On September 2, 1982, the "contract with the holder of occupancy right" ("ugovor sa nosiocem stanarskog prava", regarding the obligations in maintaining the apartment and the building, the housing fee, etc.) was concluded between me and the "SIZ" (i.e. "SIZ stanovanja općine Medvešćak", which was the government's housing body). In this contract with SIZ, the previous contract (ugovor o korištenju stana No. 7764) is mentioned as the "act by which the occupancy right had been acquired" * ("akt o stjecanju stanarskog prava").  So, evidently,  I  HAVE  ACQUIRED * THE  OCCUPANCY  RIGHT  (STANARSKO  PRAVO)  BY  THE  CONTRACT  (No. 7764)  CONCLUDED  WITH  THE  ORIGINAL  OWNER.    (See the EXPLANATION below!* ).    

     In a letter from the ECHR (dated December 16, 1999)  I was asked to send either "ugovor o najmu" ("lease contract") or "rješenje o dodjeli stanarskog prava" ("decision / decree by which the occupancy right had been granted").  I replied (on December 27, 1999) that I did not understand what is required, because I had previously sent  (on September 14, 1998, and on March 11, 1999)  photocopies of the contract No. 7764  (by which I had acquired * the occupancy right) and the ECHR has acknowledged the receipt in both cases.  (I had been previously warned by the ECHR not to send original documents but only photocopies).  I enclosed another (third) photocopy of the same contract (No. 7764)  in my above-mentioned letter of December 27, 1999.  I also said that I had acquired * the occupancy right by that contract, and (in my letter of December 29, 1999) I said that there existed no decision or decree ("rješenje") regarding the acquirement * of my occupancy right in 1982, and that no lease contract had been concluded.  I requested explanations and further instructions about what else I should do or send to the ECHR.  I  HAVE  ALWAYS  FULLY  COMPLIED  WITH  ALL THE  ECHR's  INSTRUCTIONS  AND  REQUESTS. 

    Thereafter I have not received any explanation or request from the ECHR, but later I received the ECHR's decision (No. 43447/98) containing the above-mentioned false statements, that are slanderous and harmful to me and my family.  I beg you again that they be corrected, and that the true facts be made known and visible in all places where the ECHR's decision No. 43447/98 can be seen  (i.e. on the ECHR web-pages and elsewhere). The correction should be attached to the ECHR's decision No. 43447/98  wherever this decision can be seen or read!


      I beg you to reply to this letter, and to take all the necessary steps in order to correct everything that is wrong or false.     

      With best regards,

      Dr. med. Branko Sorić                                                                  

Vlaška 84 , 10000 Zagreb, Croatia  

Fax: +385 1 4623 436    

E-mail: branko.soric@zg.t-com.hr  



NOTE (November 20, 2006): 

      During the whole last year we have not received any reply

from President Luzius Wildhaber, or from the ECHR, or others!!!

      Dr. med. Branko Sorić 

P.S.  (July 25, 2010): 

      No reply has been received.  Later I also wrote to Jean-Paul

Costa, who is President of the Court since January 19th, 2007,

but I have received no reply.

      Dr. med. Branko Sorić 



*  EXPLANATION:  Here the word "acquired" means that the existing occupancy right  (that had been originally acquired by my mother many years before 1970, in the same way as by any other holders of this right)  was  transferred upon me after her death.  This has been done not only by the contract concluded between me and the original owner (Zora Rebula) but also by the other contract that I have concluded with the "SIZ stanovanja" (which contract I have also sent to the ECHR).  Namely the occupancy rights, that had been acquired on private apartments before 1974, continued to exist permanently and could forever be transferred on family-household members.  (My mother acquired  the occupancy right as soon as this right began to exist, which was soon after the 2nd world war, or not later than 1959. I have lived in this apartment, with her, ever since the house had been built, i.e. since 1938 or 1939).

      I have never concluded a lease contract.  I have never been a lessee. 

      After having concluded the contract (No. 7764,  in 1982) with the original owner (Zora Rebula) I gave one copy of it to the "SIZ stanovanja općine Medvešćak".  

      According to the Law on Housing Relations (from 1974), after an occupancy-right holder's death the remaining family-household members had only to inform the SIZ who will be the new occupancy-right holder, or the SIZ could choose one of them.  No decision or decree was necessary, and I have not received any.  When I gave them the above mentioned contract  No. 7764 ,  they concluded with me the other contract  ("ugovor sa nosiocem stanarskog prava", 4/P-3128/82.  5334 ,  in 1982.) stating that I am the holder of the occupancy right on the ground of the first contract (7764).

      I had sent copies of the contract 7764 to the ECHR previously, and later I also sent copies of the other contract  (4/P-3128/82.  5334).

      When the ECHR asked me about the lease contract or a decree, I said the truth that I did not have them, and they never told me if they wanted anything else.


See the links at the top of this page!