A Croatian organization of the deprived holders of occupancy rights (SUSH) has proposed to join my efforts to
regain my unconstitutionally-seized property, by sending a letter to the ECHR on their behalf, together with my letter. Here
you can read both of these letters, sent to the President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Prof. Luzius Wildhaber.
Copies of the letters
sent by post:
UDRUGA STANARA HRVATSKE
NVO - NGO ALLIANCE OF TENANTS’ ASSOCIATIONS
Laginjina 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia Tel: +385 1 4668 217
091 52 57 909 & 098
52 00 22
Pro aris et focis - Za ognjište i za dom - For hearth
Our Ref: SUSH/v2d/07/11/05
Tel/Fax: +385 1 4668 217
14 November 2005
Prof. Dr. Luzius Wildhaber
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
Dear Mr. President,
Appended below is a letter addressed to you that we have received from Dr.
Branko Sorić, for your most urgent attention. We earnestly request that this case, a legitimate grievance, be reviewed
at the earliest possible juncture.
Several thousand former holders of occupancy/tenancy rights
have been deprived of their property by the State of Croatia by its discriminatory policy. We had hoped that the ECHR would intervene on their behalf, but to our great disappointment
neither the ECHR nor the Constitutional Court of Croatia have seen fit to protect our human rights and fundamental freedoms,
our occupancy/tenancy rights having been abolished by the Government of the Republic of Croatia in 1996, a decision which
the Constitutional Court of Croatia saw fit to uphold in 1999.
Moreover, as you will see, Dr. Sorić complains in his letter that in
his specific case he has been additionally damaged by the ECHR, rather than having received its just support.
Further correspondence on the matter of the abolition of occupancy/tenancy
rights, and on its appalling consequences over the past ten years, and which continue as we write, will be dispatched to you
in due course. You will be aware that Edward McMillan-Scott MEP has been kept
abreast by us, since he visited Zagreb on 1 August 2005, of the iniquitous situation that has obtained in the Republic of
Croatia since 1996.
Professor Volga Vukelja-Dawe
Anthony J. Dawe
Alliance of Tenants’ Associations of Croatia
Alliance of Tenants’ Associations of Croatia
From: Dr. med. Branko Sorić , Vlaška 84 , 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
To: Prof. dr. Luzius Wildhaber, President
of the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) Council of Europe, 67075 Strasbourg-Cedex,
+33 (0)3 88 41 27 30 ( firstname.lastname@example.org )
November 8, 2005
To my letters, sent
to you personally since 2000, I have never received any reply from you. (I have
only received some brief letters from the ECHR's Registry without any adequate response to the problems). I am even not quite
sure if my letters have ever reached you. Therefore, here is another letter that, I hope, will be sent to you via the "Savez
udruga stanara Hrvatske" (SUSH) (a Croatian organization of unconstitutionally-deprived occupancy-right holders), as they
have proposed to do, and I shall also send it directly. (I am not a member of SUSH or any other organizations). The views and statements contained in this letter are
mine, as well as of other people, but the SUSH may declare how much these views coincide with theirs.
As I wrote before,
there have happened unexplained mistakes or, perhaps, deliberate wrongdoings at the European Court of Human Rights, which
should have been corrected long ago, because THEY
CAUSE ILLEGAL DAMAGE to me, my family, and others.
This is not a complaint
regarding the conclusions or decisions (considered as "final") reached by the ECHR's chambers of judges, but THIS IS A DEMAND TO
STOP, PREVENT AND CORRECT ILLEGAL (POSSIBLY CRIMINAL)
ACTS, PERPETRATED BY PERSONS EMPLOYED AT THE ECHR (whether judges or others), like, e.g.,
(1) The Court's
decision No. 43447 / 98 contains UNTRUE statements (FALSIFICATIONS) that
are harmful to me and my family.
(2) The judge Nina
Vajić, as a member of the Court's chamber, has taken part in considering cases in which she has a personal interest,
which is forbidden by the Rules of Court (Rule 28).
(Ad 1): In my letters of August 25, 2000, and later,
I asked you for an expla-nation and correction of the untrue statements in the decision
No. 43447 / 98 and I hoped and expected that you would take all
the necessary steps in order to correct those untruths, and also to investigate and find out who is responsible or guilty
of that, etc.
Namely, in the Court's
decision No. 43447 / 98 it is UNTRULY asserted (i.e. illegally, perhaps criminally FABRICATED!) that my application contained information about my having been a "lessee" in
an apartment, while INDEED I WROTE in my application that my mother
and I have had the permanent and inheritable "TENANT'S RIGHT" (i.e. "stanarsko
pravo" or "occupancy right") which was a so-called "personal ownership" on the flat, and it was also named "divided ownership" by law experts; etc.
[ REMARK: The ECHR, in its decisions, wrongly
and misleadingly used the expression "specially protected tenancy" instead of "occupancy right" or "stanarsko pravo", but in my case the ECHR groundlessly denied even my "specially protected tenancy" (i.e. my "stanarsko pravo") and wrongly said that it was a "lease"! All of us, who are holders of the permanent and inheritable "stanarsko pravo", have always been legal (de iure and de facto) "90-percent" owners of our apartments, although
this special type of ownership has not been registered in land registers (cadastral books) which is in accordance with the
laws of former Yugoslavia (SFRY) and also of the Republic of Croatia until 1996].
I have written in
my application that I had this "tenant's right" (i.e. "stanarsko pravo" or "occupancy
right") forever by the free will
of the original owner. I HAVE NOT WRITTEN in my application that I had been a lessee (which is FALSELY alleged in the ECHR's decision)!
I HAVE NEVER BEEN A LESSEE, I HAVE
NEVER CONCLUDED A LEASE CONTRACT.
It would take too
much space to explain everything completely in this letter, but what is important is this:
The "stanarsko pravo" is not a lease and
IT IS NOT CALLED A "LEASE" IN OTHER
ECHR's DECISIONS (but it
is called "specially protected tenancy"), as distinguished from the decision
in my case, where the ECHR wrongly said that I had written in my application, that my mother and I had been "lessees", etc.! The false statements in the Court's decision in my case (No. 43447 / 98) have not only contributed to the wrong rejection of my application, but are also harmful
to me and my family in other ways, because such untrue statements are slanderous, and can also turn out to be fraudulent.
Namely, some day they can be abused as would-be "proofs" by some dishonest persons in order to illegally damage me or may
family by casting false doubts on my stanarsko
pravo. (Some persons had indeed attempted similar frauds before, about
1980. We have thwarted these illegal, criminal, fraudulent attempts by means of court proceedings, but we know from our experience
that there is always a real danger of such persons and their frauds. I can give
details to courts or others who may have legal and justified interest in them). Besides,
if I were a "lessee", my family and myself would not even have the rights of "protected tenants" prescribed by the Law on
Renting Apartments in 1996 after the abolishment of stanarsko pravo ! So, obviously, the untrue statements in the
ECHR's decision have to be corrected, because they are harmful to us, and can be even more harmful in the future.
The ECHR's decision No. 43447 / 98
contains these UNTRUE harmful
statements: "The facts of the case,
AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, may be summarized as follows. (......) 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 under his name. (......) His constant position in regard to
the flat has been that of a lessee. (....) While (other) persons were
holders of a specially protected tenancy (.....) 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.
THAT IS NOT TRUE (but that is a falsification!); - I HAVE NOT WRITTEN THAT IN MY APPLICATION! I was NOT a lessee and my position was not dependent on the will of the owner. My mother did not die in 1987 but in 1982 (as I wrote), which is important because of the changes of the
Law on Housing Relations in 1985 (whereby stanarsko pravo was to be acquired by
decision instead of ugovor o korištenju stana); etc.! If all that is just an accidental mistake, why has it not been corrected so far in spite of my warnings?!
I have demanded
since 2000, and I DEMAND today too, that the untrue, illegal, slanderous, harmful Court's statements, contained in the above-mentioned
decision (No. 43447 / 98), must
be CORRECTED ! I
demand to receive a written correction, which must also be attached and visible in all places where that decision can be seen (e.g. on the ECHR's web-pages and anywhere else)
so that everybody, who reads the untruths in the decision, can also be informed about the true facts, namely that I
have never been a "lessee", nor I have declared myself to be a "lessee", but
I have been a holder of the "stanarsko pravo"
(i.e. "occupancy right", or "specially protected tenancy" as it is called by the ECHR), etc.
Please let me know if
you want more-detailed information, proofs, etc.
Some information can also
be found at these web-addresses:
http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/id3.html (my letter to President
of ECHR, Aug. 25, 2000);
http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/id5.html (my application, 1998, with later remarks);
http://soric-b.tripod.com/prijava/index.html (my report to the
police (2001) in Croatian, which did not result in appropriate action of the public prosecutors. This shows that they do not
do their work correctly. They, and the whole Croatian judiciary, as well as the
ECHR, do not seem to function properly. - See also other pages via links "Odgovor"
and "Odgovor 2");
http://soric-b.tripod.com/summary/id4.html (one of my letters to
the European Court of Human Rights (and to others), March 16, 2004,
in Croatian and English);
http://soric-b.tripod.com/dokumenti/ (Documents in Croatian
proving that I have been a holder of the stanarsko
pravo i.e. occupancy right, etc.)
PLEASE, SEE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(Ad 2): According to the information that I have obtained
from some members of SUSH and others, the ECHR judge Prof. dr. Nina Vajić is a nominal (registered) owner of the so-called
"private occupied" apartments and, moreover, she is a party in court proceedings against a holder of the stanarsko pravo in such an apartment. (I hope that SUSH will give
you more information on this). So, she has an interest in all such or similar
cases. Rule 28 says:
"A judge may not take part in the consideration of any case if (a)
he or she has a personal interest in the case (......) (e) for any other reason, his or her independence
or impartiality may legitimately be called into doubt" (Rules of Court, ECHR).
After my mother's death
in 1982, her occupancy right (stanarsko pravo) was transferred upon me by means
of the "contract to use the apartment" ("ugovor o korištenju stana") that
the original owner Mrs. Zora Rebula concluded with me on August 31, 1982., in accordance with the then-valid Law on Housing
Relations from 1974. Her signature on that contract has been officially certified
and denoted with No. 7764. This was fully in accordance with the laws, although
such a contract was not obligatory. (In many other cases the occupancy right was legally transferred from a deceased holder
of this right to a household member, without such a contract, and I don't know if the latter received any written decree or
On September 2, 1982, the "contract with the holder of occupancy right" ("ugovor
sa nosiocem stanarskog prava", regarding the obligations in maintaining the apartment and the building, the housing fee,
etc.) was concluded between me and the "SIZ" (i.e. "SIZ stanovanja općine Medvešćak",
which was the government's housing body). In this contract with SIZ, the previous contract (ugovor o korištenju stana No. 7764) is mentioned as the "act by which the occupancy right had been acquired"
("akt o stjecanju stanarskog prava"). So,
evidently, I HAVE ACQUIRED THE OCCUPANCY RIGHT (STANARSKO PRAVO) BY THE CONTRACT (No. 7764) CONCLUDED
WITH THE ORIGINAL OWNER.
In a letter from the ECHR (dated
I was asked to send either "ugovor o najmu" ("lease contract") or "rješenje o dodjeli stanarskog prava" ("decision / decree by which
the occupancy right had been
granted"). I replied (on December
27, 1999) that I did not understand what is required, because I had previously
sent (on September 14, 1998, and on March 11, 1999) photocopies of the contract No. 7764 (by which I had acquired
the occupancy right) and the ECHR has acknowledged the receipt in both cases. (I
had been previously warned by the ECHR not to send original documents but only photocopies).
I enclosed another (third) photocopy of the same contract (No. 7764) in
my above-mentioned letter of December 27, 1999. I also said that I had acquired the occupancy right by that contract, and (in my letter of December 29,
1999) I said that there existed no decision or decree ("rješenje") regarding
the acquirement of my occupancy right in 1982, and that no lease contract had been concluded. I requested explanations and further instructions about what else I should do or send to the ECHR. I HAVE ALWAYS FULLY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE ECHR's INSTRUCTIONS
Thereafter I have not received
any explanation or request from the ECHR, but later I received the ECHR's decision (No.
43447 / 98) containing the above-mentioned false statements, that are slanderous
and harmful to me and my family. I beg you again that they be corrected, and
that the true facts be made known and visible in all places where the ECHR's decision
No. 43447 / 98 can be seen (i.e. on the ECHR web-pages and elsewhere). The correction should be attached to the ECHR's decision No. 43447 / 98 wherever this decision can be seen or read!
I beg you to reply to this letter, and to take all the necessary steps in order to correct everything that is wrong
With best regards,
Dr. med. Branko Sorić
Vlaška 84 , 10000 Zagreb, Croatia