Send these addresses to your friends:
(Back to START)
"OBMANA I ODGOVORNOST" = DECEIT AND RESPONSIBILITY
"the SEIZED property should be restituted" - while, in fact, the honestly acquired tenantship rights (i.e. the
economic value, i.e. possessions) are seized from the tenants, even in those cases, where that value HAD NOT BEEN SEIZED from
RESPONSIBILITY: Ostensibly, "nobody is responsible"!!!
****** ****** ******
The following ABBREVIATIONS will, perhaps, help to understand the
TR = tenantship right
TR(pub) = tenantship right in a "public-property"
TR(nat) = tenantship right in a nationalized flat
TR(priv)SEIZED = tenantship
right in a private flat, given against the original-owner's will; - i.e., the greatest part of the property value (property
rights) has been SEIZED from the original owner.
TR(priv)GIVEN = tenantship right in a private
flat, given by the original owner of his own free will, by means of a personally signed contract (etc.)
U(priv) = using (dwelling in) a private flat owned by another person, without a tenantship right, based on Article 61
paragraph 5 of the Law on Housing Relations (of 1985 Narodne novine No. 51/85., 42/86., 22/92., 70/93.) - [See Article 48.
of the Flat Lease Law = Zakon o najmu stanova, 1996 - Narodne novine No. 91/96].
to (=)" means EQUAL RIGHTS.
"Larger than (>)" _ [or "smaller than (<)"] _
means that one right is stronger than the other (or weaker, respectively), so that the WEAKER RIGHT IS (POSSIBLY) ABOLISHED
in order to give the right to the owner.
------ How the TRs have been treated:
1. _ According to a previous decision, made by the Constitutional Court of Croatia (Narodne novine No. 11/97, str.681),
"there has existed only one type of tenantship rights, regardless of who gave the right to use the flat". - Moreover,
the tenants in case "U(priv)" - even without a tenantship right(!) - were given the right to cheaply BUY flats
belonging to OTHER PRIVATE owners (by the Flat lease law, Article 48); - and the Constitutional Court subsequently APPROVED
of that "as being an expression of the principle of social justice" (by its decion of 1998, - Narodne novine,
No. 48/98). - Hence it follows:
TR(priv)GIVEN = TR(pub) = TR(nat) = TR(priv)SEIZED =>U(priv)
2. _ IF IT WERE "justifiable" (which it is NOT!) to abolish tenantship
rights in order to restitute the SEIZED property, then it would be logical to abolish only "TR(nat)", "TR(priv)SEIZED",
and "U(priv)", because in these cases the property rights had indeed been seized from the original owners (against
the owner's will) and these rights were given to tenants (as TR).
----- On the contrary, in the case "TR(priv)GIVEN"
the property rights have NOT BEEN SEIZED, but have been given by the owner of his own free will. Therefore, such tenantship
rights CANNOT be returned or given to the owner's legal successors. The same refers to the case "TR(pub)" in
which the State (or the public, or society) gave the tenantship rights in the public-property flats. - That is:
TR(priv)GIVEN = TR(pub) > TR(nat) = TR(priv)SEIZED = U(priv)
3. _ By the Flat Lease Law everything is made quite wrong and illogical(!):
< TR(pub) = U(priv) = TR(nat) > TR(priv)SEIZED
(Somebody should be called to account
for that, because there is, at least, a moral responsibility! - Still, it is possible that some people made unintentional
---- The unjustifiable differences: TR(priv)GIVEN < TR(pub);
U(priv); __ __ TR(priv)GIVEN < TR(nat)
---- In the case "TR(priv)GIVEN" the tenants, as well as
the original owners who gave tenantship rights of their own will, are obviously discriminated against, as compared with
the case "TR(pub)", because in both cases the tenantship right had been granted by the owners (of the owners' free
will). So, not only the tenants' rights, but also the owners' constitutional rights to freely dispose of their property,
are unjustifiably violated!! - Moreover, the tenants (like myself) who had been granted the tenantship rights by the original
owners ["TR(priv)GIVEN"], are even treated worse than those whose flats had been seized from the owners ["TR(nat)",
etc.]! - [Namely, the former have been deprived of their tenantship rights, obtained by the owner's will, while the latter
can cheaply buy the nationalized (i.e. SEIZED) flats!!!].
---- The discrimination is obvious in the case
"TR(priv)SEIZED<TR(nat)"; namely, the former LOSE their TR while the latter can cheaply BUY the flats, although
in both cases the owners' rights had been seized!
---- Also, an obvious discrimination: "TR(priv)GIVEN
< U(priv)" - i.e.: the tenants who had been GRANTED the tenantship rights (i.e. 90% of the flat value!) BY THE ORIGINAL
OWNERS (of the owners' FREE WILL), are DEPRIVED of these tenantship rights, while the other tenants are GIVEN THE RIGHT to
cheaply BUY the flats which are IN FULL PRIVATE ownership of other people!! - etc.
Since January 2000 the new government (SDP and others in the coalition) has had almost
no success in correcting the wrongdoings of the previous period. The Cabinet is not allowed to interfere in the affairs of
the judiciary, but the Cabinet should be willing and able to put in order everything that is incorrect in the State.
By the Constitutional Court's decision (Narodne novine No. 48/1998) the tenantship right has NOT been restituted
to tenants in the so-called private flats. Many people know and uderstand that this decision is bad, absurd and harmful. I
believe that the judges of the Constitutional Court must not be exempt from responsibility. Some of them, as well as some
representatives in the Sabor (parliament), should be called to account, at least in the moral sense. (Even some other form
of responsibility may not be excluded in advance).
What to say about another decision (likewise
absurd) made by the European Court of Human Rights? - It seems that some FALSE data had been palmed off on the Court. I wrote
about that many times to the Court, to the Croatian government (Cabinet), to the President of the Republic Mr Mesic', and
others, and I sent documents. I also wrote to newspapers (Jutarnji list, Vecernji list, ...), but some of my letters have
not been published. Recently I also reported to the POLICE, and they forwarded my complaint to the State Attorney (i.e public
prosecutor). - We shall see if there will be any result! - [Namely, "Nacional" of August 28, 2001 published a
statement made by Minister Sime Lucin, that the police (or MUP = Ministry of the interior) had reported on 3500 most serious
criminal offences concerning business (i.e. economy), but not a single of these cases has been processed!!!]. - [There
is more (in Croatian) about my complaint to the police on the page "PRIJAVA" - See the link "PRIJAVA"
at the bottom of this page!].
SDP (Social-Democratic Party) and others have proposed in the Sabor, that
all tenants (i.e. tenantship-right holders) should be allowed to cheaply buy the flats in which they live, while te nominal
owners should get a compensation equal to the market value of flats; - however, that has not been realized so far! - Instead,
even the so-called "Cacic's" flats (that are only planned to be built in the future) are being mentioned as a
possible "solution" (in "Vjesnik", August 16, 2001)! - Such flats might, perhaps, be only a PART of the
COMPENSATION for the nominal owners, but the tenants must IMMEDIATELY GET BACK THE FULL AND UNDIMINISHED TENANTSHIP RIGHT(!)
- which, in my case, had been seized from me WITHOUT ANY REASON, considering that it HAD NOT BEEN SEIZED FROM THE ORIGINAL
OWNER, but she gave it to me of her own free will and wish.
The politicians, ministers, Sabor representatives
from all political parties, should understand, that I AM DEPRIVED OF MY RIGHTS, GRAVELY DAMAGED (not to say "ROBBED"!),
and MADE POOR before their very eyes, because of somebody's unpardonable indolence and irresponsibility, and contrary to any
principles of justice, lawfulness and morality! The ECONOMIC VALUE of the flat (i.e. POSSESSIONS) greater than 250,000 DEM
(Deutsce Mark = German Marks) is being seized from me, while other tenants have got, not only the right to cheaply buy
the public-property flats, but also the right to buy some PRIVATE flats (fully OWNED by other people!), by Article 48 of the
Flat Lease Law!
Why is all that being tolerated during all these years?!
Some of the Croatian Constitutional-Court judges, politicians, and others (e.g. Vladimir Seks, Zarko Domljan, Marina Matulovic-Dropulic,
and many, many others) should publicly EXPLAIN their possible FALLACY or MISTAKE which made them to support the annulment
of the tenantship rights. Besides, they should CORRECT that, i.e. they should now publicly support the restitution of my tenantship
right to me, as well as the restitution of rights to other tenants in the so-called private flats.
****** ****** ****** ******
Some of the many letters, that I had written during the last ten years,
have been published in newspapers, and some others I sent to many addresses by post or e-mail. - I am not going to repeat
everything that I wrote before, but in order to give an idea of what an injustice and distress I have been suffering through
all these years, let me make one comparison:
Imagine that some day, in some country (or in this country),
a "green" party comes into power, and SUPPOSE (for example) that they take away pensions from all the people, who
have deserved them by working honestly and correctly in chemical industry, on the pretext that this industry had caused pollution
of the environment! - Would you remain indifferent, unperturbed? - What would you say or do? - Could you feel safe in such
a state, where such absurdities could happen?!
JUST AS MUCH (OR EVEN MORE) ABSURD IS WHAT HAPPENED
Instead of having worked abroad, for a several-times-greater salary, I have stayed and worked
in Zagreb, as a physician (general practitioner), for more than thirty years, and was payed about 700 DEM (about seven hundred
DEM = Deutsche Mark) per month (on average), BUT I had my tenantship right, that I had got FOREVER by the FREE WILL OF THE
ORIGINAL OWNER (now defunct) who made a CORRECT CONTRACT with me, in conformity with all the laws etc. - That tenantship right
(of mine) has been annulled (in the same way as all the other tenants in the so-called private flats have lost their tenantship
rights too), under the pretext of "restituting the seized property" or "protecting the right of ownership"
and the like; - but, - just on the contrary(!) - THE RIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER TO FREELY DISPOSE OF HER PROPERTY HAS
THUS BEEN VIOLATED!!!
****** ****** ******
Here is (abbreviated) what
I wrote in some of the published and unpublished letters:
****** ****** ******
(January 19, 2001 - To "Jutarnji list", Zagreb, Odranska b.b. - PUBLISHED):
- Minister Bozo Kovacevic
(in Jutarnji list of January 19, 2001) would like the so-called private flats to be returned to original owners, and new flats
to be built for the tenants. - In this way the State only wants to evade its obligations and expenditures, because it might
take infinitely long time to build the new flats. Only the privileged owners would get such flats (which, of course, would
be much worse than the existing ones) in order to drive the tenants thereto by force. - If a tenant WANTS to move, he must
be paid at once, in cash, more than 90% of the market-value of the flat (which is the value of the tenantship right), so that
he can freely choose and buy a flat. - If he does not want to move, he must get back his tenantship right. (Cf.: Resolution
1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, para 10. - The Flat Lease Law, Article 48.- etc.)
****** ****** ******
(January 22, 2001 - To "Vecernji list", Zagreb, Slavonska avenija
4 - NOT published): - (Referring to the above mentioned statement by minister B. Kovacevic): - How can he even think of
ejecting tenants (like myself) and driving them to other flats?! - I have got the tenantship right FOREVER (for myself and
for my legal successors, inheritors) by the will and wish of the original owner. That right is the GREATEST PART OF ALL MY
POSSESSIONS, it is also my right to a HOME! It must be fully restored to me! - I would never again vote for any coalition,
in which there would be B. Kovacevic or the likes of him.
****** ****** ******
(September 3, 2001 - To "Jutarnji list", Zagreb, Odranska b.b. - Not published)
PLANNED EVASION OF RESPONSIBILITY "
--- "During the reign of HDZ, a part of the then opposition
(i.e.: of the today's coalition) proposed a draft law, by which some obvious wrongdoings from the previous period could SUBSEQUENTLY
become punishable. It was objected, that nobody could be punished for deeds which had not PREVIOUSLY been declared punishable.
So, this proposal of a law (that might, in effect, have been good and just) has foundered because of the imperfect international
conventions, which do not prescribe any possible exceptions from the rule "nulla poena sine lege", although such
exceptions might sometimes prove to be justified indeed.
--- "Deeds, that should normally be punishable,
have been made possible by simply being legalized! - Seizing possessions (i.e. tenantship rights, even those given to tenants
by the owners themselves!) has been made possible by the Flat Lease Law and the Constitutional Court's decision. The tenants
have been deprived of their rights in order to suit sombody's interests - for example, to make possible the profits for some
people who had cheaply bought the so-called private flats in order to resell them later. - Dr. Nedjeljko Mihanovic (HDZ) named
such profiteers "the most criminal category" of nominal owners of flats (in Sabor, i.e. parliament, on April 22nd,
- "And now, pretendedly, 'nobody is guilty' " (for such legislation etc.)!
of the ways, in which deserved punishments are evaded nowadays, is temporizing and expiry (through the statute of limitations)
- ["Jutarnji list" of August 29, 2001, p.3; - also: "Nacional" of August 28, 2001, pp.28-30: __ 3500
reports, made by the police (or MUP = Ministry of the interior) referring to some of the most serious crimes in economy, have
NOT BEEN PROCESSED by courts!]. --- We, the ordinary people (non-lawyers) wonder: Cannot the expiries (through the statute
of limitations) be abolished by a law in certain cases? - Or, cannot the expiry-terms be prolonged? - Cannot this be done
SUBSEQUENTLY, - just as, e.g., the responsibility for the war crimes, comitted in the 2nd world war, does not cease, although
the convention dealing with this matter was passed in the UN as late as November 26th, 1968?
Dr.med. Branko Soric,
Zagreb, Vlaska 84"
--- [Enclosed with the above letter were photocopies of pp. 178/1/RC' and 178/2/RC' of
the phonogram of Zastupnicki dom Sabora, of April 22nd, 1998, containing the speech made by Dr. Nedjeljko Mihanovic (HDZ)].
[There are both Croatian and English texts on most of the other pages - see the links at the top of
SUMMARY in English
(Back to START)