Salje:   dr.med. Branko Soric

       Vlaska 84, 10000 Zagreb  

 

Hrvatskom saboru,  Predsjedniku Republike Hrvatske,  Vladi Republike Hrvatske,  Europskom  sudu  za  ljudska  prava   (i drugima)

 

Zagreb,  16. III. 2004.

    

     Ponovno trazim da se isprave neistiniti podatci navedeni u odluci Europskog suda za ljudska prava (broj zahtjeva: 43447/98, Odluka o dopustenosti od 16/03/2000.)

 

      Moja majka Soric Nevenka i (nakon njene smrti)  ja  imali smo trajno, neumanjeno, zauvijek nasljedivo stanarsko pravo, isto kakvo su imali i ostali nositelji stanarskog prava u tzv. "privatnim" neuseljivim stanovima, a takodjer i u drustvenim, nacionaliziranim i drugim stanovima. U mojoj tuzbi (zahtjevu, application)  Europskom sudu za ljudska prava (ECHR), 1998. god.,  naveo sam,  a takodjer sam poslao i ponudio dokaze i objasnjenja,  da smo imali to stanarsko pravo (u stanu bivse izvorne vlasnice pokojne Zore Rebula, u Zagrebu, Vlaska 84, I. kat desno, u kojem stalno stanujem od 1938. godine), te da su ukidanjem stanarskog prava povrijedjena moja ljudska prava na imovinu, dom, jednakost itd.

      Napomene: (1)  Nitko me ne zastupa  niti me je ikada zastupao pred ECHR, nisam nikoga opunomocio za to, nisam potpisao punomoc. (2) Po Zakonu o najmu stanova (1996.) nositelji stanarskog prava u tzv. "privatnim" stanovima trebaju sklopiti i potpisati nove ugovore o najmu sa zasticenom najamninom, kojima trebaju pristati da budu "zasticeni najmoprimci"!  Ja NISAM sklopio ni potpisao takav ugovor, jer zelim zauvijek zadrzati moju imovinu (t.j. vrijednost stanarskog prava)  i  ne  pristajem  na gubitak (oduzimanje) mog stanarskog prava !

 

      U odluci tog Suda (ECHR, br. 43447 / 98,  od 16. III. 2000.)  navedene su ocite neistine, koje su za mene stetne ili mogu biti stetne. 

      Europski sud za ljudska prava (ECHR) nije  osporavao dokaze o mom stanarskom pravu, koje je od mene primio,  nego je  NEISTINITO  rekao  (izmislio!)  u svojoj odluci, da sam ja sâm naveo u svom zahtjevu (application) da sam stalno bio obican "najmoprimac", itd.!  Osim toga, taj Sud je neistinito rekao, da smo moja majka i ja bili "najmoprimci" ciji je polozaj u stanu "ovisio o volji vlasnika", itd. !!!   [ECHR;  broj zahtjeva: 43447/98, Odluka o dopustenosti, od 16/03/2000].

      Na pr., u spomenutoj odluci pise ovo:  "A . (.....)  Cinjenicno stanje predmeta, kako ga je naveo podnositelj zahtjeva, moze se sazeti kako slijedi:" (.....) "1967. godine vlasnik stana dao je stan u najam majci podnositelja zahtjeva. Nakon majcine smrti 1987. godine, podnositelj zahtjeva produzio je ugovor o najmu na svoje ime" (itd.).  Na drugom mjestu pise:  "...podnositelj zahtjeva je ab initio bio najmoprimac stana u privatnom vlasnistvu, pri cemu je njegov polozaj ovisio o volji vlasnika",  i dr.

      Te gore navedene tvrdnje Suda su neistinite, izmisljene!  Naime, to nikada nije bio obican najam (osim  PRIJE 1945. godine, kad jos nisu postojala stanarska prava!),  niti smo sklopili ugovor o najmu, niti sam ja to naveo u svom zahtjevu (application), nego  sam naveo da smo imali  stanarsko  pravo,  a to je sud vidio  i  iz ovjerene kopije ugovora kojim sam stekao stanarsko pravo, itd.  Nas polozaj nije ovisio o volji vlasnika.   Moja

majka je umrla 1982. a  ne 1987. godine (sto je vazno!).   Ista odluka Suda (ECHR) sadrzi i druge ocite i bitne neispravnosti, koje u ovom trenutku ne navodim.

 

      Vise puta sam trazio od Suda i drugih da se isprave navedene neistine, jer su one za mene i moju obitelj  stetne ili mogu biti stetne,  buduci da bi neke osobe mogle tu pogresnu odluku suda citirati u cilju obmane ili prevare na nasu stetu. Neke osobe su vec i ranije bezuspjesno pokusavale ostetiti nas (prije vise od dvadeset godina), u cemu su sprijecene sudskim postupcima koje smo pokrenuli.

 

      Kako su gore spomenute neistine dospjele u odluku Suda?!

      Kad bi se radilo o nehoticnoj zabuni, ona bi bila odavno ispravljena, nakon sto sam mnogo puta upozoravao Europski sud za ljudska prava, predsjednika i suce tog suda, Vladu RH,  i druge,  na te neistine u odluci Suda i trazio da se to ispravi (ali nisam dobio odgovor)

      Treba li odatle zakljuciti, da bi se moglo raditi o svjesnoj, namjernoj obmani (ili dr.) od strane nekih pojedinaca iz Suda (ECHR), i iz Vlade RH  koja te neistine pronosi i siri putem svojih web-stranica (gdje se nalazi spomenuta odluka Suda)???!!! 

     [ Mozda je neistine sudu podvalio netko izvan suda ili netko u samom sudu.   Mozda je netko nesto falsificirao,  na pr. moju tuzbu(?), ili je sakrio odnosno falsificirao dokaze(?) koje sam poslao, ili dao sudu lazne, falsificirane dokumente sa falsificiranim potpisima(?), ili naveo lazne svjedoke(?), ili slicno, ili drugo(?). Ne znam nije li Sud mozda bez mog znanja trazio izjave ili saslusavao neke osobe koje su mogle Sudu reci neistine, klevete, i sl.(?)].

      Cinjenica je  da su  navodi  u  odluci  Europskog suda za ljudska prava  lazni,  a istina je da smo moja majka i ja bili nositelji stanarskog prava  a ne obicni najmoprimci. Nismo bili ovisni o volji vlasnika.  Molim da se od mene zatraze dokazi ako su potrebni (a neke je Sud vec ranije dobio).  Ako osobe u Europskom sudu za ljudska prava, u tijelima vlasti Republike Hrvatske, u drzavnom odvjetnistvu itd., ne zele utvrditi tko je unio neistinite navode u odluku tog suda, meni to nije bitno, nego trazim da se ISPRAVE  neistiniti navodi u spomenutoj odluci Europskog suda za ljudska prava, kao i u prijevodu koji se nalazi i na web-stranicama Vlade RH (odluka od 16. III. 2000.,  43447 / 98.).  Trazim da se konstatira istina,  t.j.  da smo moja majka i ja  zakonito stekli  i uvijek  imali potpuno, neumanjeno, trajno, zauvijek nasljedivo stanarsko pravo, kakvo su imali i ostali nositelji stanarskog prava u drustvenim stanovima, kao i u tzv. privatnim stanovima po clanku 3. st. 2. Zakonu o stambenim odnosima (1974.).

      Trazim da se ispravi sve sto je pogresno, neistinito, itd., i da se ukloni odnosno sprijeci  svaka  steta  koja je time nanesena ili moze kasnije biti nanesena meni ili mojoj obitelji.

 

      S postovanjem,      

dr. med. Branko Soric

Vlaska 84

10000 ZAGREB,  CROATIA

E-mail:  branko.soric@zg.t-com.hr   

 

 

From:  Dr. med. Branko Soric, Vlaska 84, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia    

 

To:   European Court of Human Rights

Council of Europe,   F - 67075 Strasbourg-Cedex

 

 Zagreb, March 16, 2004

 

      I again request that the untruths in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights be corrected  (Application number: 43447/98,  Decision date: 16/03/2000).  

   

     My mother Nevenka Soric and (after her death)  myself  had a permanent, complete,  undiminished, forever-inheritable tenantship right, equal to such rights of other tenantship-right holders in the so-called "private" occupied apartments, and also in public, nationalized and other apartments. In my application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1998  I wrote, and I also sent and offered proofs and explanations, that we had  the tenantship right (in the apartment of the former original owner, now deceased, Zora Rebula,  in Zagreb,  Vlaska 84,  first floor- to the right-hand side,  where I live and have always lived since 1938),  and that my human rights to property (possessions), home, freedom from discrimination, etc., had been violated by abolishing the tenantship right, etc.

      Note: (1) Nobody represents me  or has ever represented me before the ECHR,  I have not appointed any representative, I have never signed such a form of authority.  (2) By the Law on Renting Apartments (1996), tenantship-right holders in so-called "private" apartments should make and sign  new contracts  by which they should  agree  to become  "protected lease-holders" (and should pay a limited rent).  I have NOT made or signed such a contract,  because I  want  to  keep  my property (i.e. tenantship-right value)  forever  and I  do  not  agree to lose my tenantship right  or to be deprived of it!

      In the decision of the ECHR  (43447 / 98,  of March 16, 2000)  the Court wrote untruths  which are harmful to me  or can be harmful.

      The ECHR did not contest the proofs of my tenantship right,  which the Court had received from me,  but it said  UNTRULY  in its decision, that I had myself written in my application  that I had always been a "lessee", etc.!  Also, the Court wrote untruly that my mother and myself had been "lessees" whose position in the apartment "was dependent on the will of the owner", etc.!!  (ECHR, Application number: 43447/98, Decision date: 16/03/2000.)

      For example, it is written in the above-mentioned Court's decision:  "A . (......) The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:" (.....) "in 1967 the owner of the flat leased the flat to the applicants mother. After the mothers death in 1987, the applicant prolonged the lease under his name" (etc.).  In another place the Court wrote:  "...the applicant has been ab initio a lessee of a privately-owned flat, where his position was dependent on the will of the owner"; etc.  

       The above-cited Court's statements are untrue, fabricated!  Namely, that has never been a common lease  (except  BEFORE 1945,  when tenantship rights did not yet exist at all!), and we never made a lease contract, and I have not written that in my application, but I wrote that we had the tenantship right, and the Court knew that, having seen an attested copy of the contract by which I had acquired my tenantship right, etc. Our position was not dependent on the owner's will.  My mother died in 1982, and  not in 1987 (which is important!).  - There are other grave and obvious mistakes  in the above-mentioned Court's decision, which I don't adduce here. 

      I asked  the Court and others, a number of times, to correct the above-mentioned untruths,  which are  harmful  or  can be harmful  to me and my family  because some persons might cite the incorrect Court's decision in their illegal attempts to damage us by deceits or frauds. Some persons unsuccessfully tried to damage us, more than twenty years ago, but they have been thwarted by legal proceedings that we started in courts.

 

      How the above-mentioned untruths got into the ECHR's decision?!

      If they had been caused by an unintentional mistake, they would have been corrected long ago,  after I had repeatedly cautioned  the ECHR, the President and judges of the Court (ECHR), the Croatian government (Cabinet), and others, about the untruths in the Court's decision, and asked that these untruths be corrected (but I received  no reply). 

      So, what should be inferred?!  Is a conscious, intentional deceit (or the like) being committed by some individuals at the Court (ECHR), and also at the Croatian government (which transmits and spreads the untruths through its web-pages, where the above-mentioned decision is displayed)???!!

     [ Perhaps the untruths have been palmed off on the Court  either by somebody in the Court itself or outside it.  Perhaps something has been falsified (e.g. my application?); or the proofs, sent by me, were perhaps hidden or falsified(?); or false documents with falsified signatures have perhaps been presented to the Court(?), or fake witnesses may perhaps have been brought(?), or the like, or something else(?).  I don't know whether the Court perhaps (secretly)  heard some persons or their possible false statements, lies, slanders, etc.(?)].

 

      The fact is  that the data in the Court's (ECHR's) decision are false, and the truth is that my mother and myself have been tenantship-right holders, and we have not been  common "lessees". We were not dependent on the owner's will. I beg that proofs be requested from me, if they are needed  (and some proofs have already been received by the Court). If some persons in the Court (ECHR), in the Croatian government, in the public-prosecutor's office, etc., do not want to find out who put the false data (false statements) into the Court's decision,  that is not essential to me,  but  I request that the false data (statements) in the above-mentioned ECHR's decision  be CORRECTED, and the same corrections should be made in the text of the same decision that is displayed at the Croatian-government's (Cabinet's) web-site  (the decision of March 16, 2000,  No. 43447 / 98).  I request that the truth be stated, and the truth is that my mother and myself have legally acquired and always kept the full, complete, undiminished, permanent, forever-inheritable tenantship right, which is equal to the right of  tenantship-right holders in public apartments, as well as in the so-called private apartments by Article 3 Paragraph 2 of the Law on Housing Relations (1974).

      Everything that is mistaken, false, etc., must  be  corrected,  and  any damage, that has been inflicted upon me or my family, or can be inflicted later, must be eliminated and prevented.

 

       Sincerely,     

dr. med. Branko Soric

Address:  Vlaska 84

10000 ZAGREB, CROATIA

E-mail:  branko.soric@zg.t-com.hr