------------------

      U bivšoj Jugoslaviji (SFRJ), po Zakonu o stambenim odnosima (ZSO, 1974.), zemljišno-knjižni privatni vlasnik stana bio je "davalac stana na korištenje", te je mogao i trebao sklopiti "ugovor o korištenju stana" sa stanarom. Poslije smrti nositelja stanarskog prava, član njegovog obiteljskog kućanstva postajao je novi nositelj stanarskog prava na temelju takvog ugovora. Međutim, privatni zemljišno-knjižni vlasnici nisu bili prisiljeni sklapati te ugovore. Po istom zakonu (ZSO), ako vlasnik nije sklopio takav ugovor, jedina posljedica bila je ta, da je državno stambeno tijelo (SIZ stanovanja) izdalo rješenje koje je zamijenilo taj ugovor o korištenju stana. To se je događalo u većini slučajeva, jer velika većina vlasnika nije svojom voljom pristala dati stanarsko pravo stanarima, te nisu sklopili takve ugovore. Zato je, 1996. godine, većina stanara (ili gotovo svi) u tzv. privatnim neuseljivim stanovima imala stanarsko pravo na temelju takvih rješenja, protiv volje vlasnika (za razliku od mog slučaja). Ako je zemljišno-knjižni vlasnik odlučio sklopiti "ugovor o korištenju stana", on je to učinio svojom slobodnom voljom (kao u mom slučaju).

      Hrvatski zakonodavci, kao i suci Ustavnog suda i Europskog suda za ljudska prava, jednostavno ne žele obratiti pažnju na najvažnije i bitno pitanje, je li imovina bila oduzeta od vlasnika, ili ju je vlasnik dao svojom voljom!  Razlog za takvo ponašanje je taj, da bi se ostvarila nepravedna dobit za profitere, koji su, u mnogim slučajevima (za vrijeme SFRJ), jeftino kupili pravo da se upišu u zemljišne knjige kao nominalni vlasnici takvih privatnih neuseljivih stanova!

      U novoj Republici Hrvatskoj, nositelji stanarskog prava dobili su pravo jeftino otkupiti većinu oduzetih privatnih stanova, dok se, naprotiv, nekim drugim nositeljima (nelogično!) oduzima stanarsko pravo. (U obje te grupe stanarska prava su bila stečena protiv volje zemljišno-knjižnih vlasnika). Moj slučaj je različit od toga, jer sam ja dobio stanarsko pravo od vlasnice, njenom slobodnom voljom, putem zakonito sklopljenog ugovora, koji nikada nitko nije osporavao. Međutim (sasvim nelogično i apsurdno!) Zakonom o najmu stanova (1996.) meni se nastoji oteti moje stanarsko pravo!!!

      Preko 90 posto tržišne vrijednosti tzv. "privatnog neuseljivog stana" je imovina nositelja stanarskog prava, a nominalnom (zemljišno-knjižnom) vlasniku pripada manje od 10 posto. (To je slična situacija kao u slučaju najma na 1000 ili više godina, uz ugovorenu vrlo malu najamninu. itd.). Međutim, ti nominalni vlasnici žele protupravno preoteti onih 90 posto vrijednosti, a u tome ih ne sprječavaju, ili im čak na protupravan način pomažu, političari (HDZ, SDP, HSS....), suci Ustavnog suda, suci Europskog suda za ljudska prava (na što nije reagirao ni bivši predsjednik tog Suda Luzius Wildhaber), i drugi.

      Da smo, u mom slučaju, 1982. godine znali (pokojna izvorna vlasnica stana i ja) kakve nezamislive stvari će se kasnije dogoditi, bili bismo sklopili ugovor o dugotrajnom nasljedivom najmu na rok od, recimo, tisuću godina ili dulje, umjesto ugovora o vječnom stanarskom pravu, pa u tom slučaju ja i moja obitelj ne bismo danas imali nikakvih problema, jer je 1996. godine (neopravdano) ukinuto stanarsko pravo, ali najam nije ukinut (što je ispravno).

      In former Yugoslavia (SFRY), by the Law on Housing Relations ("Zakon o stambenim odnosima", ZSO, 1974), a registered private owner of a flat was the "giver of the flat to be used" who could and should conclude a "contract on using the flat" ("ugovor o korištenju stana") with an occupant. After the death of a holder of occupancy right, a member of his family household became the new occupancy-right holder by means of such a contract. However, the private registered owners were not compelled to make these contracts. By the same law (ZSO), if an owner had not concluded that contract, the only consequence was, that the state housing authority ("SIZ stanovanja") issued a decree which substituted the contract. This happened in most cases, because most owners did not agree to give occupancy rights to occupants and did not conclude such contracts. So, in 1996, most (or almost all) other occupants in so-called private flats had their occupancy rights on the ground of such decrees against the will of registered owners (in distinction from my case). If a registered owner decided to conclude a "contract on using the flat", he did so of his own free will (as in my case).

      The Croatian legislators, the judges of the Constitutional Court and of the European Court of Human Rights, simply do not want to pay attention to the most crucial question, whether the property has been seized from an owner, or given by the owner of his/her free will! The purpose of such behavior is to effectuate unjust profits for profiteers, who had, in many cases (during former Yugoslavia), cheaply bought the right to be registered as nominal owners of such private occupied flats!

      In the new Republic of Croatia, the occupancy-right holders have been given the right to cheaply buy most seized private flats, but (illogically) some other such holders have instead been deprived of their occupancy rights (in 1996). (In both those groups the occupancy rights had been acquired against the owners' will).  My case is different, because I have been given the occupancy right by the owner, of her own free will, by means of a legally concluded contract, which has never been disputed by anybody. However, (quite illogically and absurdly!) the Law on Renting Flats (in 1996) deprives me of my occupancy right!!!

      More than 90 percent of the market value of a so-called "private occupied flat" is the property of the occupancy-right holder, while less than 10 percent belongs to the nominal (registered) owner. (That is a similar situation as in the case of a long-term lease for a period of 1000 years or longer, with a stipulated very low rent, etc.). However, these nominal owners want to unlawfully grab those 90 percent of the value, and in doing so they are not thwarted, or are even unlawfully aided, by politicians (HDZ, SDP, HSS....), judges of the Constitutional Court, judges or the European Court of Human Rights (without any reaction by the former president of that Court, Luzius Wildhaber), and others.

      In my case, if the original owner of the flat (who is not alive now) and myself had known in 1982, what unimaginable things would happen later, we would have concluded a long-lease contract, for a period of, say, thousand years or more, instead of a permanent occupancy-right contract, and in such a case I and my family would have no problems today, because the leases have  not  been abolished (while the occupancy rights have been unjustifiably abolished in 1996).

      IF  I  LIVED  ANYWHERE  OUTSIDE  CROATIA,  IN  AMERICA  OR  IN  EUROPE,  MY  CONTRACT,  THAT  I  HAVE  CONCLUDED  WITH  THE  OWNER,  WOULD  NEVER  BE  VIOLATED  OR  ABOLISHED  and also the courts would not falsify the data (facts) that I had given  -  which has been done by somebody in the European Court of Human Rights, who has not even been punished so far!!!  (See "Home" and also:  https://soric-b.tripod.com/dokumenti/id11.html  - where you can read a letter from 2005 by myself and the Alliance of Occupants' Associations of Croatia, sent to the President of the European Court of Human Rights). 

      That is a cause for great concern and much thought for everybody in Croatia and Europe!  What is happening in Croatia  - and in Europe too?  (Namely, the Croatian government could never be such as it is, if the European governments were better than that).  How is that possible?  Where does it lead to? 

      It is obvious that democracy and legal institutions do not function. They are being destroyed by false defenders (in fact violators) of human rights in many countries, many political parties and law-courts, whose disguised dictatorship and robbery is based simply on their ignoring any justified complaints or accusations, thwarting the publication of truth in newspapers, waiting for the robbed persons to become tired and give up their rights, and waiting for the public to forget everything....!!! 

      Our unjustly and wrongly seized property i.e. all our rights that we have forever acquired and had within our occupancy right (stanarsko pravo) must be immediately and completely returned to me and my family (i.e. my wife Marija, our son Neven and his descendants/inheritors). We have always demanded this, we demand it now, and we will demand it always in the future.

 Jun, 2009

 Branko  Sorić

------------------