SP
Home | STAN | U.sud/DORH | NAKNADA | ZNS | Ludilo | IX.13./Crkva | Dom | Pravednost | Dug | Dobrota | OBZOP | 999g/pojmovi | Predsjedniku RH | ZASTARA | XI 09 | II 10 | Pisma IX 09 | Ugovor | Becic(Sabor) | Long lease etc. | Cl.48.ZNS | Possessions/ECHR | Stecena prava | Socijalna pravda | Aneks G / R.1096 | VIII 08 | VII 08 | UN1 | UN2
U.sud/DORH

(Hrvatski tekst je dolje*)

       Translation of a letter

        sent to newspapers:

.                    March 5th, 2014

Dear Editors and everybody else,
This should be published in all newspapers
:
---------------------

      How is it possible that many Croatian MPs and other officials, members of political parties, university professors, and other citizens,  IF  THEY  ARE  NORMALLY  INTELLIGENT  AND  HONEST  PEOPLE,  are silent for more than 15 years,  instead of demanding that the public prosecutors (state attorneys) do their duty, which means that it is necessary to stop the  OBVIOUS  VIOLATIONS  OF  APPLICABLE  REGULATIONS  COMMITTED  BY  THE  AUTHORITIES  (including the Constitutional Court and others)?!!  These violations are easily noticed and recognized by everybody!
---------------------------------

THE  COMPLETELY  UNSATISFACTORY  WORK  OF 

THE  STATE  ATTORNEY'S  OFFICE  (DORH)

 
      In Jutarnji list of 2.3.2014 (March 2nd, 2014),  twenty-seven cases are mentioned, that had been examined by the State Attorney's Office (DORH), in which cases the perpetrators had violated the laws and caused a total damage of three billion HRK.*  (This part of the job has been well done by the DORH - but this is just a smaller part!). In some of these cases it is not yet proved who is guilty.
      However, the most important thing would be to pay attention to what the State Attorney's Office  does  NOT  do,  and not only to what it does do!  In Jutarnji list there is no mention of the  QUITE  SIMPLE  AND  IMPORTANT  CASE,  in which the State Attorney's Office (DORH)  so far  did  NOT want to do anything (during many years!), although in this case the total damage amounts to some six billion HRK (roughly estimated).**
      Some people try to justify the State Attorney's Office  for some cases of its inaction, saying that it is one thing to know, but another thing is to have the proofs;  but the above-mentioned case is extremely simple and clear, so that it would be easy to find who is guilty, and it is quite obvious and unquestionable who has  CAUSED  the damage and how:
      In this
case the law was not broken, but a higher regulation was violated, i.e. an unlawful provision has been made in the Flat Lease Law, which provision is contrary to a higher regulations  (i.e. to the Annex G  of the international Agreement on Succession Issues, which, under the Croatian Constitution, is stronger than domestic laws).  It was the  DUTY  of the Constitutional Court to correct that manifest error, and the Court could quite easily have seen it, and should have corrected it,  but it has  NOT  corrected it(!);  and in this way the Court has caused a total damage of (approximately) six billion HRK to thousands of families, whose occupancy rights are proclaimed to "cease" by the unlawful provision of the Flat Lease Law, and, in addition, enormous suffering has been inflicted on them, and (among other things)
their human right to safe and permanent possession of their homes is gravely violated.
      All this is clear and obvious***, but the authorities (including the Constitutional Court, the State Attorney, many officials, and others) just  do  NOT  WANT  (REJECT)  to see that, to know that, to investigate, to correct....  etc.!!!
      It is necessary to identify the persons who are guilty of such unlawful behavior  among those in power (constitutional judges, the Government, the Ministry (MGIPU), the State Attorney's Office, and others)!  It is necessary to annul all the harmful consequences of this unlawful behavior!
      In addition to the damage suffered by the occupants, one must also note the total damage of several billion euros (EUR) that is suffered by the original owners of seized flats (nationalized flats, and others), because they have not been granted fair compensations, to which they are entitled by Resolution 562 of the U.S. House of Representatives (1998), and by Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (1996) which has also been included with the H. Res. 562 .___
   (See:  [Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145
  (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)] [House]
  [Pages H10724-H10728] )!      "Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (......) H. Res. 562 (......)  I include the following materials relating to this resolution: (......)  Resolution 1096 on Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of Former Communist Totalitarian Systems (Council of Europe  Parliamentary Assembly), 1996 (......)".
---
      Branko Sorić, dr. med.
__________________________

      References:
      * (See below, in Croatian!)  ---   ** (See below, Croatian!)
***  The "occupancy right" ("stanarsko pravo") is permanent (ETERNAL, forever inheritable) and  EXCLUSIVE right to possess a certain flat (apartment) (and to use it, etc.), and it is practically the same as the legal ownership, with a difference that (according to the laws of SFR Yugoslavia) entry into the land register was not necessary for the acquisition of this legal "unregistered ownership".
      Occupancy right existed  both on the social flats (where the "society" (state) was registered as the nominal owner)  and on private flats (where the original private owner was registered as the nominal owner). In both cases the registered owners are only nominal owners, who have ceased to be the rightful owners (in terms of the Law on Ownership), because, by the laws of former Yugoslavia, they had forever lost almost all  the owners' rights, and because the ownership is indivisible.  When the new Croatian Constitution came into force (in 1990)  nothing changed, because this Constitution  DOES  NOT  RELATE  AND  DOES  NOT  APPLY  to the legal relationships which arose prior to the entry into force of the Constitution. That has also been said by the Constitutional Court (in 1999), but later (in 2005) the Constitutional Court made a wrong (unlawful, illogical, impossible) decision, in which it (wrongly) applied the Constitution, although, as mentioned above, the Constitution cannot be applied in this case - (namely, in 2005 the Constitutional Court said that Annex G is "not relevant" because occupancy rights are (purportedly) contrary to citizens' rights guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution).  Equally wrong (illogical, unlawful) is the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998.
      If these wrong (unlawful) decisions of the Constitutional Court (from 1998 and 2005)  were implemented, that would violate the Constitution and the international agreement, which must never be violated. Accordingly, these wrong decisions cannot  and must not  be implemented, but (in accordance with the Annex G) the provision of the Flat Lease Law, which says that the occupancy right "ceases", must be annulled.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

_* (Hrvatski:)_

  _____________                                                                5. III. 2014

Poštovana Uredništva i svi ostali!

Ovo je potrebno objaviti u svim novinama:

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

Kako je moguće

da mnogi saborski zastupnici i drugi dužnosnici, članovi političkih stranaka, sveučilišni profesori, i ostali građani,  AKO  SU  NORMALNO  INTELIGENTNI  I  POŠTENI  LJUDI,  kroz više od 15 godina  šute,  umjesto da traže da  DORH  vrši svoju dužnost,  te da  PRESTANE  OČITO  I  SVAKOME  VIDLJIVO   KRŠENJE  VAŽEĆIH  PROPISA  OD  STRANE  VLASTI  (uključujući  Ustavni sud i druge)?!!

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

POTPUNO  NEZADOVOLJAVAJUĆI  RAD

 DRŽAVNOG  ODVJETNIŠTVA

 

      U Jutarnjem listu od 2.III.2014. navedeno je  dvadeset sedam slučajeva, koje je istražilo Državno odvjetništvo (DORH), u kojima su počinitelji  PREKRŠILI  ZAKONE  i prouzročili ukupnu štetu od  TRI  MILIJARDE  KUNA.*   (To je dobro obavljen dio posla DORH-a - ali samo manji dio!).  U nekima od tih slučajeva  nije još dokazano tko je kriv. 

      Međutim, najvažnije bi bilo obratiti pozornost na ono što DORH   NE  čini,  a ne samo na ono što čini!   U Jutarnjem listu  nije spomenut  jedan  SASVIM  JEDNOSTAVAN  I  VAŽAN  SLUČAJ,  u kojemu Državno odvjetništvo (DORH)  do sada  NIJE  htjelo  ništa poduzeti (kroz dugi niz godina!), iako je u tom slučaju učinjena ukupna šteta od nekih  ŠEST  MILIJARDI  KUNA  (grubo približno).** 

      Neki traže opravdanje za DORH  u nekim slučajevima nečinjenja,  govoreći da je jedna stvar znati, a druga stvar je imati dokaze;  ali spomenuti slučaj je krajnje jednostavan i jasan, i bilo bi lako istražiti tko je kriv, a sasvim je očito i neupitno tko je tu štetu  PROUZROČIO  i na koji način:

      U tom slučaju nije prekršen zakon nego viši propis, t.j. donijeta je protupravna zakonska odredba, koja je  SUPROTNA  VIŠEM  PROPISU  (t.j. Aneksu G međunarodnog ugovora o pitanjima sukcesije, koji je, po Ustavu RH, jači od domaćih zakona). Tu očitu pogrešku bio je  DUŽAN  ispraviti Ustavni sud RH, i mogao ju je sasvim lako vidjeti i ispraviti, ali  nije  ju  ispravio(!),  te je na taj način prouzročio ukupnu štetu od (približno) šest milijardi kuna  tisućama obitelji,  kojima "prestaje" stanarsko pravo protupravnom odredbom Zakona o najmu stanova, a osim toga nanesene su im ogromne patnje, te je (među ostalim) teško povrijeđeno njihovo ljudsko pravo na siguran i trajan posjed svog doma.

      Sve je to potpuno jasno i očito***, ali vlast (uključujući Ustavni sud RH,  DORH,  mnoge dužnosnike, i druge osobe)  to jednostavno  NE  ŽELI  (ODBIJA)  vidjeti, znati, istražiti, ispraviti.... itd.!!! 

      Potrebno je utvrditi krivce za takvo protupravno ponašanje vlastodržaca  (ustavnih sudaca, Vlade, Ministarstva (MGIPU),  DORH-a, i drugih)!  Potrebno je poništiti sve štetne posljedice tog protupravnog ponašanja!

      Osim štete koju trpe stanari, mora se spomenuti i šteta od nekoliko milijardi eura, koju trpe izvorni vlasnici oduzetih stanova  (nacionaliziranih i drugih),  jer nisu dobili poštenu  NAKNADU,  na koju imaju pravo po  Rezolucijama 562  i  1096****!

--

      Branko Sorić, dr. med.

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

      Referencije  (5.3.2014.):

*  U 27 istraženih slučajeva pokradeno je, navodno, 3 milijarde kuna.  http://www.jutarnji.hr/dvanaest-godina-potrage-dovelo-ga-je-do-tri-milijarde-pokradenih-kuna/1169719/   2.III.2014.  "TUŽITELJ KOJI JE PROMIJENIO HRVATSK,". -- Također u tiskanom izdanju:  Nedjeljni Jutarnji  2.III.2014.  (Panorama)  str. 20.  --  "Nepopustljivi tužitelj je promijenio državu  - Mladen Bajić  - Dvanaest godina potrage dovelo ga je do tri milijarde pokradenih kuna" - (Piše Vanja Nezirović)   -  Navedeno je 27 slučajeva:  1 Uhićenje Željka Kalebića;  2 Otmica sina Vladimira Zagorca;  3 Slučaj ‘Brezovica’;  4 Afera Granić;  5 Slučaj Glavaš;  6 Afera Veliki i Mali Maestro;  7 Brodosplit;  8 Akcija Index;  9 Afera HŽ;  10 Afera Kamioni;  11 Afera Spice;  12 Afera HEP;  13 Afera HAC;  14 Bankomat;  15 Hypo banka;  16 Fimi-Media;  17 Afera Ina-Mol;  18 Fond za zaštitu okoliša;  19 Reflektori;  20 Planinska;  21 Core Media;  22 Afera Offside;  23 Afera Hipokrat;  24 Remorker;  25 Afera KABA;  26 Afera Cetinski;  27 Afera VSOA.

--

**   U gore spomenutom neistraženom slučaju ukradeno je oko 6 milijardi kuna od nositelja stanarskih prava. --  PRIBLIŽNI  izračun:  10.000 tzv. "privatnih neuseljivih" stanova 80.000 eura =  približno 800 milijuna eura = približno 6 milijardi kuna.

--

***   Stanarsko pravo je trajno (VJEČNO, zauvijek nasljedivo)  i  ISKLJUČIVO  pravo posjeda određenog stana  (i uporabe, itd.), te je praktički jednako zakonitom vlasništvu, s tom razlikom, da (po zakonima SFR Jugoslavije) nije bio potreban upis u zemljišnu knjigu za stjecanje tog zakonitog "izvan-knjižnog vlasništva".

      Stanarsko pravo je postojalo i na društvenim stanovima (pri čemu je kao nominalni vlasnik bila uknjiženo "društvo" t.j. država)  i na privatnim stanovima  (pri čemu je kao nominalni vlasnik bio upisan izvorni privatni vlasnik stana). U oba slučaja  ti uknjiženi vlasnici su samo nominalni vlasnici, koji su prestali biti zakoniti vlasnici (u smislu Zakona o vlasništvu),  jer su, po zakonima u SFRJ, zauvijek izgubili gotovo sve vlasničke ovlasti, a vlasništvo je nedjeljivo. Stupanjem na snagu Ustava RH (1990. god.)  NIJE  SE  NIŠTA  PROMIJENILO, jer se taj Ustav  NE  ODNOSI  I  NE  PRIMJENJUJE  na te pravne odnose koji su nastali prije stupanja Ustava na snagu. To je također rekao i Ustavni sud RH (1999. godine), ali je kasnije (2005. god.)  donio pogrešnu  (protupravnu, nelogičnu, nemoguću)  odluku, u kojoj je (pogrešno) primijenio Ustav RH, iako se taj Ustav, kao što je gore rečeno, NE  MOŽE  PRIMIJENITI  u tom slučaju - (naime, 2005. god. Ustavni sud je rekao da Aneks G "nije mjerodavan" jer da su stanarska prava suprotna pravima građana koja su zajamčena Ustavom RH).  Jednako je pogrešna (nelogična, protupravna) i odluka Ustavnog suda RH iz 1998. godine. 

      Kad bi se provodile te protupravne odluke Ustavnog suda RH (iz 1998. i 2005. god.), time bi se kršio Ustav i međunarodni ugovor, koji se nipošto ne smiju kršiti. Prema tome, te pogrešne odluke se  NE  MOGU  I  NE  SMIJU  provoditi, nego se mora  (u skladu s Aneksom G)  PONIŠTITI  odredba Zakona o najmu stanova koja kaže da "prestaje" stanarsko pravo.

-

****  Uz Rezoluciju 562 Predstavničkog doma Kongresa SAD-a (1998. god.)  bila je priložena i Rezolucija 1096 Parlamentarne skupštine Vijeća Europe (iz 1996. god.).   ---  (Vidi:  [Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)] [House]

[Pages H10724-H10728] )!      "Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (......) H. Res. 562 (......)  I include the following materials relating to this resolution: (......)  Resolution 1096 on Measures to Dismantle the Heritage of Former Communist Totalitarian Systems (Council of Europe  Parliamentary Assembly), 1996 (......)".

---
 

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

---