Letter to the President of the European Court for Human Rights

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 / I

10000 ZAGREB, CROATIA

P.S.

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!

ENCLOSURES

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.