helmet crest on black
Letter to the President of the European Court for Human Rights
ODGOVOR 2 - od XI. 2002.
Letter to the President of the European Court for Human Rights


(NOTE:  In my complaint to the European Court of Human Rights I wrote that both my mother  and  (later, from 1982) myself  were holders of tenantship right.  In the Court's decision it is untruely written, that the owner "leased" the flat to my mother, and that I was likewise (from "1987") a "lessee" in the flat where  my "position was dependent on the will of the owner"!  -  See also another NOTE below! #)


ON  AUGUST 25, 2000
(I have not received a reply to this letter):
From:  Branko Soric,  Vlaska 84 / I,  10000 Zagreb,  Croatia
To:   Mr. Luzius Wildhaber, President of the Court
          European Court for Human Rights
          Council of Europe   
          F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex   France

                                                               Zagreb,  25 August 2000

Dear Sir,

     I beg you to help me,  either  (if possible)  directly,   or by entrusting  my request to some person of your confidence.  I am writing to  you personally  and  I beg you to read this letter:

     I want to know  on which informations,  testimonies  or  document(s)   [or other ground(s)]   the Court had based  some of its assertions  in the decision by which my application has been declared inadmissible.   Namely,  the Court has made some assertions,  that are contrary to mine   (and also contrary to the documents that I had sent),  without  explaining  the reasons  or citing the grounds or possible sources of informations!  (.....).   ( Is  it  possible that some wrong informations or false documents have been submitted to the Court??)

     I understand  that those documents   (or written statemens, etc.)   are accessible to the public, but I cannot afford to come to Strasbourg myself  in order to ask for the documents in the Court's archives.   Besides,  I wish that you (in person)  be informed about the contradictory statements;  so, please, read the rest:

     Both  my  mother   and  (later)  myself  have  had  the  full   (complete) "tenantship right"  (in the flat in Zagreb, Vlaska 84 / I, desno)   like all the other  tenants in  this country  who  lived in  private flats  since the 2nd world war.  Moreover,  the original owner  has also granted this right to me!    [ Please, see  explanations about the "tenantship right"  below,  in the  P.S.*)].

     [ Only some of the "new"  tenants or tenantship-right holders,  who did  not live  in such private flats before 1959.,  could have been  "lessees, dependent on the private-owners' will";   because, e.g., there was a possibility of a  special clause in their contracts  (see below:  P.S.**)).  However, there could not be,  and  there  never  was,  such a clause  in the case of my mother and myself ! ].

     The Court,  in  its  Decision   (No.: 43447/ 98),   said  quite  wrongly   that  the owner had "leased" the flat to my mother and (later) to myself;   that I had been a "lessee"  whose position in the flat had been   "dependent  on the  will of the owner"  as distinguished  from the holders of   "specially protected tenancies"  in  publicly-owned  flats!!!;  (etc.).

     I want  to  know the  exact  grounds of  these  assertions,  and  I beg you  to

kindly send me photocopies of the document(s)  [or other ground(s)]  on which the Court's  (wrong)  statements  have been  based.

     ( Application No.:  43447/ 98 ;    Branko SORIC  vs.  Croatia ).

Thank you very much!          Yours sincerely  

     Branko Soric,   Vlaska 84 / 

     10000 ZAGREB,  CROATIA    



     When the Court's decision arrived, I was much surprised and shocked!

The lawyers,  whom I asked,  do not understand what has happend!

     Upon receiving the decision,  I wrote to the Court,  and I also addressed  another letter "to the  President of the Court";    but I only received a reply from the Secretary's office,  saying that the decision was final.


   *)  Explanations about the term "tenantship right":  The original Croatian name of this right is "stanarsko pravo"  (.....)  while  the Court has used the name "specially protected tenancy".

     This right,  belonging to tenants in  publicly-owned flats  and also to tenants who have lived in  privately-owned flats  since the 2nd world war,  was a valuable possession;   it entitled such a tenant and his legal successors  to use the flat  forever,  and to inherit forever this right,  which was considered as a "divided ownership" on a flat.  The value of this right was equal  to more  than ninety percent of the flat value.    (The nominal owners of such "private flats"  used to sell these flats for less than ten percent of the value!).

     A nominal private owner of such a flat  could never,  of  his/her  own will,  give notice to a  holder of the  "tenantship right"  (.....).   So,  our position in the flat was   independent  of the owner's will;   there is a great difference between an ordinary  "lessee"  and a  holder of the "tenantship right"!!

     By the  Law on Housing Relations  ("Zakon o stambenim odnosima")   of 1974,  a  tenantship right  was acquired by a  "contract on using the flat".     Thus,  my-mother's tenantship right was  transferred  to me in 1982  (after her death)   by  such a contract,  made between the  original owner  and myself. The owner did it of her own free will.  (.....).       (Later, by the new "Zakon o stambenim odnosima"  of 1985,  the way of acquiring tenantship rights  was somewhat changed).

     **)  The  above-mentioned  "special clause"  was made possible in  "new" contracts  by  the  "Zakon o vlasnistvu na dijelovima zgrada"   of  1959 (Article 13),  1965 (Article 12);   also mentioned in the  official gazette "Narodne novine" No. 52 / 1973.    However,  all  the  "old"  tenants,  like  my  mother  and  myself,  have  always  had  complete  (intact, uncurtailed)  tenantship rights,  which  we have  kept  forever!



  A)    (The photocopies of the following documents have been enclosed with the above letter):

1. "UGOVOR O KORISTENJU STANA" -  This is the  "contract on using the flat" made between the original owner (now defunct)   Mrs. Zora Rebula  and myself  on  31 August 1982.,  after my-mother's death.  ( No. 7764 ).  By this contract, my mother's  tenantship right  (which I had every right to inherit)  was transferred upon myself  by the original owner  (of  her  own  free  will;   she was  not obliged by the law  to make this contract).  -   This contract was based on the previous contract,  made on  8 February 1967  between my mother (Soric Nevenka)  and the "City Housing Firm Zagreb I"   i.e.  "Gradsko stambeno poduzece Zagreb I".      (Like all the tenants, who had lived in private flats since the 2nd world war,  my mother made contracts with the housing firm.  (.......)   (The) owner has agreed to my-mother's acquiring the tenantship right forever.  If, perhaps, this had been unclear from my application,  I explained it in my subsequent suplementary letters to the Court  -  before the Court's Decision ).  (......)   (The owner  wished  to give me the tenantship right  because she knew me very well  since my childhood,  and she had no children of her own).   The European Court of Human Rights,  before  making its decision,  received a photocopy of my contract  (No. 7764, of 31 August 1982) certified by a notary public.

2. "UGOVOR SA NOSIOCEM STANARSKOG PRAVA..."   -    "SIZ stanovanja opcine Medvescak" made this contract with me  on the ground  of the contract made previously between the original owner and myself  (as mentioned above, under 1.).  In the  "Ugovor sa nosiocem..."  it is noted, that I have acquired the tenantship right by the contract made with the original owner  (No. 7764  of 31 August 1982;   i.e. the "akt o sticanju stanarskog prava"),   The Court has received  (after its Decision)  a certified photocopy of the "UGOVOR SA NOSIOCEM STANARSKOG PRAVA...".

3. "UVJERENJE O PREBIVALISTU"  for my mother (1 specimen)  and for myself (2 specimens).  -   Certificates issued by the "Zagreb Police Direction" showing that my mother and myself have lived in the flat,  in Zagreb, Vlaska 84,  since  9 May 1945.   In fact, we have lived in this flat ever since 1939,  but the Police Direction has deleted its records of residences before 1945. - (In 1945 I was twelve years of age.  At that time, of course,  the tenantship rights did not yet exist.   Later, my mother acquired the  tenantship right forever, in the same way as all the other tenants who lived in private flats since 1945).   My mother died in 1982, and the original owner Mrs Zora Rebula  died in  1987.  (See  4., below !)        NOTE:  In the Court's decision  it is  wrongly  asserted  that  my mother died in 1987!!    (See  4., below !)

4. "IZVOD IZ MATICNE KNJIGE UMRLIH"  -  The ceritficate of my-mother's death.  she died on 28 July 1982.

 B)   SOME OF THE UNEXPLAINED STATEMENTS IN THE COURT'S DECISION The European Court of Human Rights made the Decison on 16 March 2000 (Application No.:  43447 / 98 ;  Branko SORIC vs. Croatia)   containing some untrue statemens  for which no grounds or explanations  are given in the Decision.    (In the quotations below,  I have underlined some of those untrue assertions): 

On page 2 of the Decision:    (Line 1:  "The facts" .....)   Line 8 to 10;  "...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 ....".      (See my REMARKS below !  *).

On page 6:    (Line 1:  "Complaints" .....)   Line 27:  "The flat was rented....."   (See my  REMARKS below *).

On page 7:    (Line 1: "Act does not authorise".....)   Line 33:  "His constant position in regard to the flat has been that of a lessee".   (See my REMARKS  below *).

On page 8:   (Line 1: "3. The applicant finally".....)   Line 22 to 26:  "While such persons were holders of a specially protected  tenancy (....)  the applicant has been  ab initio  a lessee of a privately owned flat,  where his postition was dependent on the will of the owner".    (See my REMARKS below *).

*)   MY REMARKS:    Both my mother and myself  had the tenantship right!  So, it was  not an ordinary "lease"!!   Neither my-mother's position nor my position  in the flat  was dependent on the owner's will;   the owner could never  give notice to my mother  or to myself  in the way  in which a notice could be given to an ordinary lessee!    My mother did  not die in 1987!  She died in 1982.  (The original owner Mrs. Zora Rebula  died in 1987.) 

Branko Soric,    Vlaska 84 / I ,  10000 ZAGREB,   CROATIA


#) NOTE: The ECHR's Decision (of March 16, 2000) was SENT to me ENCLOSED with their letter dated March 29, 2000 (signed by Vincent Berger), and  I  RECEIVED  the Decision on April 5, 2000. I sent letters to the Court about the false statements in the Decision as soon as I could. One of these letters was sent by me to the Court on April 18, 2000, and the receipt of this letter was acknowledged by the Court in the letter dated May 22, 2000 (signed by Elica Grdinic). I also repeatedly sent other letters to the Court, to the judges, to President Luzius Wildhaber, and others.

Visit the other sites (click below!):