(Back to START)

E-mail: branko.soric@zg.htnet.hr

Please, first read the text "IN BRIEF" ! - (Click on "UKRATKO - IN BRIEF" at the top of this page !)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- (See the links above!)
September 2001

(ATTENTION ! --- IT SEEMS THAT CROATIAN NEWSPAPERS ARE NEITHER FREE ENOUGH NOR IMPARTIAL. - On this page, and also on the page "Summary (ctd.)", you can find some of the letters, that I recently SENT TO NEWSPAPERS, BUT SOME OF THEM HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED for reasons that may seem obvious. - Almost all the letters that I had sent previously, during the last ten years, have been published. --- You can also click on the link: "UNPUBLISHED LETTERS"):

UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

****** ****** ******

****** ****** ******

"OBESPRAVLJENOST" = DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
Violations of the tenants' human rights to property, home, etc.

During SFRJ (the former Yugoslavia) the tenants in private flats acquired a special, PERMANENT AND FOREVER INHERITABLE "tenantship right" ("stanarsko pravo"), which was the tenants' property (possession), worth more than 90% (more than ninety percent) of the market value of a flat, and, for this reason, the original owners used to sell such flats for less than ten percent of the value. Such flats were bought by profiteers, whom Dr. Nedjeljko Mihanovic (HDZ) called in Sabor (i.e. Croatian parliament - on Aprill 22, 1998) "the most criminal category" of nominal owners of flats.

Some politicians (like dr Jure Radic, in "Vecernji list" of December 6, 1998) WRONGLY maintained that "the tenantship right was not an ownership (property), but a long-ago-abandoned purely-communist category". - In fact, the "tenantship right" (="stanarsko pravo") was the then name for a type of DIVIDED OWNERSHIP ("dominium divisum" - see in "Pravni leksikon", 1970, on page 780-781: "PODELJENA SVOJINA"). This type of ownership has existed since long-before the appearance of communism, and in the today's Republic of Croatia there is also a corresponding and very-similar "right of dwelling" (="pravo stanovanja") which is today classified as a kind of "personal servitude" and can belong forever to a family (i.e. until that family, perhaps, dies out; - see the Law on Ownership and Other Property Rights = Zakon o vlasnistvu i drugim stvarnim pravima, in Narodne novine No. 91 / 1996, Articles 199.(2), 244.(3), etc.). - The difference is, that the divided ownership (i.e. stanarsko pravo) in the former Yugoslavia (SFRJ) was, in many cases, lawfully created AGAINST THE ORIGINAL-OWNER'S WILL and so the greatest part of his ownership rights (more than 90% of the flat value) has forever been SEIZED from such an owner. Such a seized ownership (property) should NOT be restituted in integrum, because the tenants' rights should not be violated (according to Resolution 1096 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1996); instead, the owners should rerceive a just material compensation. - Of course, there can be NO justification for abolishing or reducing a tenantship right that has been given to a tenant by an original owner of his/her own free will !

The tenantship right was abolished in the new Republic of Croatia (RH) by the Flat Lease Law (the Law on Renting Flats, "Zakon o najmu stanova") in 1996. The ostensible reason was to restitute the SEIZED property to the original owners.

However, MY TENANTSHIP RIGHT, GIVEN TO ME BY THE ORIGINAL PRIVATE-FLAT OWNER (now defunct), OF HER OWN FREE WILL (by a correct, regular, valid contract), HAS ALSO BEEN ABOLISHED - i.e. SEIZED FROM ME (by the same law), although it HAD NOT BEEN SEIZED FROM THE OWNER! - (NOTE: The owner's signature has been officially certified by the authorities. The contract was made in 1982, in conformity with all the laws, and has never been disputed by anybody).
[See the page (link): "OBMANA I ODGOVORNOST" = Deceit and responsibility].

****** ****** ******

TENANTSHIP RIGHT IN THE SO-CALLED PRIVATE FLATS AND THE TENANTS' HUMAN RIGHS

Dr.med. Branko Soric
Vlaska 84, 10000 ZAGREB, CROATIA
E-mail: branko.soric@zg.tel.hr

The tenants (i.e. tenantship-right holders) were given the right to cheaply buy the public-property flats in 1991, as well as the nationalized flats (which were NOT restituted to original owners!) - while the tenants in the so-called private flats (who had also been tenantship-right holders!) were denied this right to buy the flats. Moreover, their tenantship right was abolished by the Flat Lease Law in 1996 without any compensation. - IT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE IMPOSSIBLE SUCH (or any other) DISCRIMINATION.

Many people wonder how such things can happen at all! Still, hundreds of thousands of families, who cheaply bought the "public" and nationalized flats, are silent, as though being indifferent to the sufferings of the other tenants. THEY ARE WRONG, BECAUSE SOME DAY THEY WILL ALSO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, IF THEY DO NOT REACT NOW.

THE EVIL OR INJUSTICE INFLICTED UPON "SOME OTHER PEOPLE" MUST NOT BE TOLERATED OR IGNORED!
There must be no discrimination. Therefore, either ALL the tenants must be allowed to cheaply BUY THE FLATS, IN THE EXACTLY-SAME WAY, or ALL of them must RETURN THE BOUGHT FLATS (the nationalized and other flats) and become the so-called "protected lessees" - who must all be exactly-equally "protected", regardless of the type of flats in which they had tenantship rights - no matter whether they lived in nationalized, or private, or public-property flats!

Almost all the rights of many original private-flat owners (even those who remained registered in the cadastral books) have been seized from them forever (in SFRJ), and these rights have FOREVER been given to the tenantship-right holders; - and this has been done BY THE LAW. Thus, the reliability of cadastral books (land-registers), as proofs of absolute or complete ownership, has been lawfully derogated. Therefore, THE SO-CALLED PRIVATE FLATS MUST BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER SEIZED PROPERTY. ALSO, THEY MUST BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS THE NATIONALIZED FLATS HAVE BEEN TREATED. - (Moreover, keep in mind that, in some cases, an original owner has given, of his/her own free will, the tenantship right to a tenant. - Of course, in such cases the property has not been seized, and so it is obvious that it must not be returned or given to the owner's inheritors).

The Flat Lease Law was passed in October 1996, but at that time the Croatian publc was not made aware of the Resolution 1096 (paragraph 10) which had been adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe a few months before, i.e. on June 27, 1996.! This Resolution 1096, demanding a just material compensation for the owners, in order not to violate the rights of tenants, was practically kept secret, and the contrary law was passed.

Evidently, the reason for passing the Flat Lease Law was to make possible the unjust profits of those who had cheaply bought the flats during SFRJ (which flats had been made worthless by the tenantship rights). The excuse for annulling the tenantship rights was the "restitution of the seized property" - although the nationalized flats have NOT been returned to original owners, because the tenatship rights could not be violated!!!
IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN TENANTSHIP RIGHTS ON NATIONALIZED FLATS, THESE FLATS WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY! (See the Resolution 1096, paragraph 10.!). - LIKEWISE, THE TENANTSHIP RIGHTS IN THE SO-CALLED PRIVATE FLATS MUST NOT BE VIOLATED, AND THESE TENANTSHIP RIGHTS MUST BE FULLY RESTORED TO TENANTS. - In the opposite case, i.e. if violating the tenantship rights were considered to be lawfully justified (in order to restitute the seized property to original owners), then ALL THE NATIONALIZED (AND OTHER) FLATS MUST ALSO BE RETURNED TO ORIGINAL OWNERS.

So, the tenantship rights in the so-called private flats were unnulled (seized from tenants) wrongly and contrarily to Resolutin 1096.

But, moreover, even the tenantship rights GIVEN BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS (NOT SEIZED from the owners!) HAVE ALSO BEEN ABOLISHED - (this was done "by the way"; - but quite illogically and unjustly!)

I ask all the persons, who had supported or voted (in Sabor, i.e. parliament) for the abolishment of tenantship rights, to recognize and correct their mistake, and I demand that MY HONESTLY-ACQUIRED TENANTSHIP RIGHT BE IMMEDIATELY AND FULLY RESTORED TO ME.

****** ****** ******

I am not a member of any tenants' associations, and I dissociate myself from them. - I HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED ANYBODY TO SPEAK OR ACT IN MY BEHALF.
--- Neither lawyers, nor the tenants' organizations, nor the organizations whose principal objective is to defend human rights, (etc.), have been sufficiently determined or persistent in defending my rights or the rights of other tenants.
[I am not sure how much truth there is in rumours, that some individuals in such professions or organizations might themselves have taken part or an interest in cheaply buying private flats in order, perhaps, to resell them at higher prices].

I BEG EVERYBODY TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO DEFEND MY (OUR) HUMAN RIGHTS, i.e.: the right to EQUAL treatment (without discrimination) of all tenantship-right holders, the rights to PROPERTY and HOME; _ namely, the tenantship right, that could FOREVER be inherited, had an ECONOMIC value (i.e. property value) of more than 90% of the market value of a flat. _ The new right of "protected lease-holding" is far less (i.e. much weaker), so that it is easy to drive such a tenant out of the flat; and the "protection" is limited only to the persons who were in a flat in 1996; the new members of the tenant's family or the tenant's legal successors will LOSE every right upon the flat! So, the "protected lease-holding" has no permanent economic value, and it is practically worthless in the sense of property (possessions) - as opposed to the tenantship right, which was a "divided property" ("dominium divisum").
The tenantship rights should be returned to tenants, and the original owners should be given a COMPENSATION equal to the market value of the flats.

I wrote many letters during the last ten years, describing the above problems and asking for help, and I sent those letters to many addresses. Some of them have been published in newspapers, but SOME LETTERS HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED. - Thus, in effect, MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, FREE EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS, OR FREELY ADDRESSING THE PUBLIC, ARE LIMITED!! For that reason I am now trying to reach as many people as possible through these web pages.

On these pages, in the Croatian text, there are copies of some of those letters, that I sent to the newspapers: Jutarnji list, Vecernji list, and Nacional.- ALSO, SEE THE PAGE "SUMMARY (ctd.)"!

****** ****** ******

Regarding MY OWN CASE, there was no reason whatsoever to abolish my tenatship right, which I had ACQUIRED FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER, OF HER OWN FREE WILL AND WISH, by a correct, regular, valid contract, with the owner's officially-certified signature on it, in conformity with the laws, etc.

Instead of having worked abroad, for a several-times-greater salary, I have stayed and worked in Zagreb as a physician (general practitioner), for more than thirty years, and was paid, on average, about 700 DEM per month (about seven hundred DEM = Deutsche Mark, or about 350 US dollars per month, on average). - I stayed BECAUSE I RELIED ON MY TENANTSHIP RIGHT! - NOW, IN MY OLD AGE, I AM OUTRAGEOUSLY TRICKED AND DAMAGED BY THE STATE!

The Constitutional Court of Croatia has given (generally) quite an absurd explanation for the annulment of tenantship rights. Allegedly, such a right "no longer exists in our new constitutional system", and the like. _ On the contrary, it is evident that the tenantship right, if it is granted by an owner, is NOT CONTRARY to the Constitution. Namely, according to the TODAY'S Law on ownership and other property rights (Article 244, paragraph 3), it is also possible for an owner to give forever a "right of dwelling" (which is very similar to the tenantship right) to a family, although this right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. (This right of dwelling can forever be inherited by descendants, unless the family dies out).

I have complained to the European Court of Human Rights, but, as it seems, somebody gave false data to the Court (perhaps even falsified documents?). I wrote about this many times to the Court, to the President of the European Court of Human Rights, to the Croatian government, the President of the Republic Mr Mesic, etc. - Recently I also informed the police. The police sent my complaint to the State Attorney's (Drzavno odvjetnistvo). - We shall see what will be the result! Namely, Minister Sime Lucin said (in Nacional, August 28, 2001), that the police (or the ministry, MUP) have recently reported to the judiciary on 3500 cases of most serious crimes in economy, but not a single of these cases has been processed in courts!!! - [There is more (in Croatian) about my complaint to the police on the page "PRIJAVA" - See the link "PRIJAVA" at the bottom of this page!].

****** ****** ******

"OBMANA I ODGOVORNOST" = DECEIT AND RESPONSIBILITY
[This text is continued on the page: "SUMMARY (ctd.)" - see below. - There are both Croatian and English texts on most of the other pages (see the links at the top of this page!)]
_ Click on the link "SUMMARY (ctd.)" below:

SUMMARY (ctd.)

(Back to START)

PRIJAVA

OBESPRAVLJENOST