Possessions/ECHR
ŠTO SPADA U POJAM VLASNIŠTVA
(IMOVINE, "POSSESSION") U SMISLU EUROPSKE
KONVENCIJE O LJUDSKIM PRAVIMA (čl.
1. Prvog protokola)
------------------
Kopija pisma (e-maila) poslanog Globusu, Jutarnjem listu, Večernjem listu,
Novom listu, Slobodnoj Dalmaciji, Vjesniku, HINA-i, i na mnoge druge adrese:
12. XII.
2008.
Cijenjena
uredništva i ostali,
(Kao prvo, napominjemo da ministra Šimonovića
NE smatramo odgovornim za pogrešne izjave, koje su prije njegovog mandata dale osobe zaposlene u Ministarstvu
pravosuđa).
U Globusu br. 923 od 15/08/2008, str. 101, Ministarstvo pravosuđa je u svom pismu napisalo, (1) da se u predmetu pred velikom vijećem Europskog suda za ljudska prava (Blečić c/a RH)
"Sud jasno očitovao da se stanarska prava u Hrvatskoj
ne mogu podvesti pod vlasništvo". Nakon duljeg upornog insistiranja jedva
smo dobili objašnjenje Ministarstva (2), koje se svodi uglavnom na to, da "niti u jednoj presudi ili odluci Europski sud
nije utvrdio da se stanarsko pravo može smatrati vlasništvom u smislu članka 1. Protokola br. 1", što je potpuno različito od tvrdnje
pod (1). Zato smo tražili da Ministarstvo objavi ispravak neistinite
informacije pod (1), kojom je javnost dovedena u tešku zabludu. Budući da to nije učinjeno, tražimo da se objavi slijedeća istinita informacija (3):
"Europski
sud za ljudska prava NIJE SE OČITOVAO da se stanarska prava u
Hrvatskoj ne mogu podvesti pod vlasništvo
u smislu članka 1. Protokola br. 1 Europske konvencije o ljudskim pravima.
Naprotiv, iz prakse tog Suda je jasno, da u taj pojam vlasništva spada čak i dugotrajni najam, kao i druga
prava koja imaju ekonomsku vrijednost". *
Gore navedenu istinitu informaciju
(3) potrebno je objaviti u Globusu, a također i u najčitanijim dnevnim
novinama (kao što je npr. Večernji, Jutarnji, Novi list, Slobodna Dalmacija,
itd.), jer je mala vjerojatnost da će upravo one iste osobe, koje su dovedene u zabludu izjavom pod (1) objavljenom u Globusu, pročitati informaciju (3), ako bude
objavljena samo u Globusu.
S poštovanjem,
dr. med. Branko Sorić i drugi nositelji stanarskog prava
______________________
* [Vidi, na primjer, slučaj Teteriny v. Russia, Applic. No. 11931/03 ; "50. The Court is therefore satisfied
that the applicant's claim to a “social tenancy agreement” was
sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1." [Dakle, "Društveni najam" u Rusiji (koji nije bio jače pravo od našeg
stanarskog prava) jest imovina odnosno vlasništvo u smislu Europske konvencije (t.j. "possessions").] - (U gore spomenutom objašnjenju, koje smo dobili iz Ministarstva, bile su spomenute još
neke odluke Europskog suda za ljudska prava (na pr.u slučaju Gaćeša br. 43389/02, Rašeta br. 125/05, itd.), u kojima se Sud nije izjasnio o tome, spada li stanarsko pravo u "possessions").
NAPOMENA: Kad
bi Europski sud za ljudska prava rekao, da stanarsko pravo ne spada u pojam "possessions" (t.j. vlasništvo ili imovina,
u smislu članka 1. Protokola br. 1), to ne bi bilo ništa drugo nego još jedna besmislica i pogreška tog
Suda, odnosno sudaca, isto kao što je taj Sud pogrešno i neistinito nazvao stanarsko pravo zaštićenim
najmom ("specially protected tenancy"), i kao što je u svojim odlukama napisao razne druge besmislice i neistine
(vidi, na pr.: https://soric-b.tripod.com/dokumenti/ itd.)].
---------------------------------
DODATCI:
U prvostupanjskoj presudi (u slučaju Blečić v. Croatia, broj zahtjeva: 59532/00)
Europski sud za ljudska prava (ECHR) kaže da nije
smatrao potrebnim odlučiti (i nije odlučio) o tome, je li stanarsko pravo (koje
Sud pogrešno i neistinito naziva "zaštićenim najmom"!!) imovina ili "possessions" u smislu članka
1. Prvog protokola. Bez obzira na to, je li stanarsko pravo imovina ("possessions") u
navedenom smislu ili nije, Sud smatra (u tom slučaju Blečić) da nije prekršen članak 1
Prvog protokola zbog (navodnog) postojanja legitimnog cilja socijalne politike i sl.
Iz prvostupanjske presude ECHR-a :
CASE OF BLEČIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 59532/00)
FIRST
SECTION (Chamber) judgment 29 July 2004:
"1. The Court does not find it necessary to decide
whether or not a specially protected tenancy constitutes property or a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1" (......)
["Even assuming that the termination of the applicant’s tenancy involved a right to property, the Court
considers (......) termination of the applicant’s tenancy, (......) pursued a legitimate social-policy aim. - 2. Furthermore, (......) a fair balance between the demands of
the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (......) - 3. The
Court accordingly concludes that the termination of the tenancy and the resultant loss of a possible opportunity to purchase
the flat in question did not amount to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1."].
U konačnoj presudi veliko vijeće samo
citira ono što je navedeno u prvostupanjskoj presudi te se ograničava na pitanje spada li uopće
cijeli taj slučaj u nadležnost ECHR-a.
Iz konačne presude ECHR-a :
CASE OF BLEČIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 59532/00)
GRAND CHAMBER final judgment 8 March 2006:
"4. On 29 July 2004 a
Chamber of the Section composed of (......) held unanimously that
there had been no violation of either Article 8 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention". (......)
---------------------------
(Imovina - "possessions")
Literatura i kratki citati:
(1) Monica
Carss-Frisk: The
Right to property - A guide to implementation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the European Convention on human rights - Human rights handbooks, No. 4 (2001): "6.
The first thing to bear in mind when considering Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that the concept of property, or possessions,
is very broadly interpreted. It covers a range of economic interests. The following have been held to fall within the
protection of Article 1: movable or immovable property, tangible
or intangible interests, such as shares, patents, an arbitration award, the entitlement to a pension,
a landlords entitlement to rent, the economic interests connected with the running of a business, the right to exercise a
profession, a legitimate expectation that a certain state of affairs
will apply, a legal claim, and the clientele of a cinema".
(2) Francis
G. Jacobs & Robin C. A. White: The
European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press - Oxford, 1996.
(Slično kao gore pod (1). Prema praksi ECHR "property" odnosno possessions ima vrlo široko značenje, t.j. obuhvaća prava koja imaju ekonomsku vrijednost). Navedeni su primjeri:
pravo ribarenja, stalna klijentela ili ugled poduzeća koji ima novčanu vrijednost ("goodwill in a business"), dozvola
za točenje alkoholnih pića, i drugo. - (Napomena B.S: Očito, i stanarsko pravo, koje je imalo trajnu ekonomsku vrijednost, spada
u taj pojam "possessions" odnosno "imovina".)
(3) Pravni leksikon, 1970. ("Imovina", "Podijeljena svojina"): Imovinu čine "stvari
i druge ekonomske vrijednosti". - (Primjedba BS.: prema tome, stanarsko pravo
je imovina i vlasništvo t.j. podijeljeno vlasništvo).
(4) http://www.see-ran.org/expanded/?id=00162 (skinuto sa Interneta oko 5. VI. 2004.) ANALIZA ODLUKE USTAVNOG
SUDA BIH SARAJEVO BROJ: U-24/ 00
(od 31. 08. 2001.): Ustavni sud BiH poistovjećuje
stanarsko pravo sa imovinom" koja
je zaštićena "članom
1. Protokola 1. Evropske konvencije".
(5)
Vera Miletić,
dipl. pravnica: Analiza stambenog prava i zaštite
u Federaciji (elektronska verzija
2001-2004.), Udruženje "ŽENA
BIH", Mostar, Bosna i Hercegovina: "Stanarsko
pravo... (je) svojinsko - vlasničko pravo koje ima sve karakteristike i obilježja imovinskog prava kao ljudskog prava....
(6) Charity Commission Direct / PO
Box 1227 / LIVERPOOL / L69 3UG /
Fax: 0151 7031 555 /
Offices: Harmsworth House / 13-15 Bouverie Street / London / EC4Y 8DP / 12
Princes Dock / Princes Parade /
Liverpool / L3 1DE
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/ogs/g071c003.asp#a2
The Charity Commission is the registrar and regulator of charities in England and Wales.
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE / HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 / ARTICLE 1 OF THE FIRST PROTOCOL -
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY / OG 71 C3 -
18 September 2000 / Purpose:
This guidance explains the requirements of Article
1 of the First Protocol of The European Convention on Human Rights –
the protection of property.
1. The principles of Article 1 of the First Protocol (......)
2.
Definition of property or possessions
" 'Property' or 'possessions' in this context
has a wide meaning and covers anything of economic value. It includes physical and non-physical property such as: land and buildings; money;
goods; shares and investments; patents; rights under contracts
(including leases); rights to run a business or economic interest
connected to the running of a business; rights to exercise a profession; goodwill; a benefit resulting from a restrictive covenant;
an entitlement to an annual rent; damages or other sums awarded by a court
or tribunal. (......)."
(7) http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application
No. 12947/87
by the Association of General Practitioners against Denmark
The European Commission of Human Rights (.....) on
12 July 1989 (......) Decides as
follows: (......) The contract between
the applicant and the National Health Service at issue (......) was concluded
on 30 March 1976 (......) The provision
of the Contract (......) is article 78 dealing with the adjustment of the general
practitioners' basic fees. (......)
The applicant is of the opinion that contractual rights (......) constitute "possessions" within the
meaning of Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that the general practitioners have been "deprived"
of such possessions (......)
The Commission
would not exclude that the contractual right to this amount
was a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) to the Convention and it must therefore be determined whether the deprivation of the property was "in the public interest"
(......)
(8) http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/eyl/eyrepES01.htm#_ftn94
"A LOOK AT SCOTTISH PROPERTY LAW FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (......)
"[94] In bat para 155 the Commission decided that a long
lease constituted “property” within the meaning of the Convention, leaving it unclear,
why short term lease was not included into such proposition. See also Antniades
v United Kingdom, App. No. 15434/89; 64 D.R. 232 at 235; Melacher v Austria (1989) 12 E.H.R.R. 391 at para 43; Lundquist v
Sweden, App. No. 10911/84;
(1986) 48 D.R. 191 at para 195; Association of General Practitioners v Denmark, App. No.12947/87; 62 D.R. 226 at para 234.".
(Napomena B.S.:
Stanarsko pravo je mnogo veće pravo od "dugotrajnog najma". Najam je privremen, a stanarsko
pravo je stečeno zauvijek i sadržava gotovo sva trajna i isključiva vlasnička prava. Nositelji stanarskog prava nisu sklapali ugovore o najmu,
nisu imali obvezu da stan ikada vrate nominalnom "vlasniku", itd. Stanarsko pravo imalo je veliku ekonomsku vrijednost.
- Vidi dolje*).
(9) http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp?skin=hudoc-en
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=14377062&skin=hudoc-en&action=request
"The
European Commission of Human Rights (.....) on 7 July 1986 (......) "Having regard to the application introduced on 23 March 1984 by U.L. against Sweden and registered
on 13 April 1984 under file No. 10911/84;
(......) Decides as follows: (......)
....the applicant signed and entered into a leasing contract
(......) piece of land (......)
According to the contract it was a lease for dwelling purposes (......) The duration
of the lease was 50 years as from 1 May 1974
and thus expired on 1 May 2024. (......) Regarding the question whether
the present case discloses an interference with the applicant's right of property, the Commission recalls that the applicant is a leaseholder and not the actual owner of the piece of
land in question. The
Commission does not, however, find that this fact affects the outcome of this case, but accepts that the land is the applicant's
property within the meaning of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (......)".
------------------
_________________
* Kolika je bila ekonomska vrijednost stanarskog prava vidi se iz slijedećega: Nositelji stanarskog prava nisu plaćali najamninu nominalnom vlasniku, nego su plaćali SIZ-u
stanovanja malu stanarinu (jednaku u društvenim i tzv. privatnim neuseljivim stanovima), koja je uglavnom odgovarala
današnjem doprinosu za zajedničku pričuvu zgrade. Ta stanarina bila je oko 30 ili 40 puta manja od slobodno
ugovorene najamnine za jednaki stan, tako da je ušteda kroz nekoliko desetaka godina
bila približno jednaka tržišnoj vrijednosti jednakog useljivog stana. Stanarina je morala biti malena,
jer je stanarsko pravo bilo zakonom i ustavom (1974.) zajamčeno nositelju tog prava i njegovoj obitelji, pa je i
obitelj sa najnižim primanjima (plaćom), koja je mogla imati veliki broj članova (djece), morala biti u stanju
plaćati stanarinu za relativno veliki stan u kojemu je živjela. Stanarsko
pravo bilo je (pored plaće) dio
naknade za rad cijele obitelji, jer, po članku 11. Ustavu SFRJ (1974. god.),
"rad i rezultati rada određuju materijalni i društveni položaj čovjeka", a po članku 22. tog Ustava
"jamče se svakome radniku u udruženom radu društvenim sredstvima osobni dohodak i druga prava po osnovi rada
najmanje u visini odnosno opsegu koji osigurava njegovu materijalnu i socijalnu sigurnost".
Dakle, nije se smjelo dogoditi i nije se događalo, da bi netko izgubio stanarsko pravo zato što ne bi mogao
plaćati stanarinu (kad bi ona bila relativno previsoka).
Vrijednost stanarskog prava odgovarala je oko 90 posto tržišne cijene useljivog stana. Tzv. privatni neuseljivi
stanovi prodavali su se za vrijeme SFRJ za oko 10 posto te cijene, a po sličnoj (ili još nižoj) cijeni otkupljeni
su i društveni stanovi (1991.), i nacionalizirani, kao i dio PRIVATNIH stanova, koji su bili 1996. godine oduzeti
od zakonitih privatnih vlasnika i jeftino prodani običnim najmoprimcima(!) (po
čl. 48. Zakona o najmu stanova, 1996.). To je učinjeno radi socijalne pravde, uz odobrenje Ustavnog suda RH, dok
je istovremeno učinjena teška socijalna nepravda nama - nositeljima stanarskog prava(!) u stanovima koji su bili samo nominalno privatni(!) (dok smo mi imali trajna (vječna) i
isključiva vlasnička prava posjeda, uporabe itd.!). Nama je ne samo uskraćeno pravo jeftinog otkupa naših
stanova, nego nam je čak oduzeto i samo stanarsko pravo!!! Time nam je protupravno oduzeta imovina vrijedna
oko 90 posto tržišne cijene našeg stana! (To je učinjeno suprotno Aneksu G međunarodnog Ugovora
o pitanjima sukcesije, Rezoluciji 1096 Parlamentarne skupštine Vijeća Europe, itd.). To oduzimanje naše imovine
ništavno je po Aneksu G. [Napomena: U skladu s Aneksom G i Rezolucijom 1096, kad se radi o stanovima sa stanarskim pravom, imovina (vlasnička prava), koja je za vrijeme
SFRJ oduzeta od izvornih vlasnika i dana nositeljima stanarskog prava, ne smije se vratiti izvornim vlasnicima u naturi, kako
se ne bi kršila stečena prava, nego država mora dati naknadu izvornim vlasnicima (kao što je doista
i učinjeno u slučaju nacionaliziranih stanova)!].
------------------
SLUČAJEVI KOJI SE SPOMINJU U OBJAŠNJENJU MINISTARSTVA:
--------------------------
1. FINAL DECISION - APPLICATION No. 43389/02 by Milka GAĆEŠA against Croatia (......)
"Court considers that, when examining the alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (......), it does
not have to determine whether a specially protected tenancy itself could be considered a “possession” (......)
"“Possessions” can be “existing possessions” or assets, including claims, in respect of which
an applicant can argue that he has at least a “legitimate expectation” (which must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope)
that they will be realised, that is that he or she will obtain
effective enjoyment of a property right". (......)
"The hope of recognition of a property right which it has been impossible to exercise effectively after the entry into
force of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the State concerned cannot be considered a 'possession'" (......)
"Neither the applicant nor her
husband had ever made a request to purchase the flat and that in their case the statutory time-limit for doing so had expired
on 31 December 1995". (......)
"...the right to live* in a particular
property not owned by an applicant does not as such constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (see Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission decision of 12 January
1994...) (......)".
* [("Pravo na stanovanje" (the
right to live") ovdje ne znači stanarsko pravo ni dugotrajni najam (ni slično) - Vidi dolje slučaj Durini**].
Primjedba B.S.: Kao što se vidi iz gornjega, u slučaju Gaćeša
Sud nije odlučio spada li stanarsko pravo u "possessions" ili ne spada.
** ( DECISION of 12 January 1994 - APPLICATION No. 19217/91 - Adriana, Paola and Diamanda DURINI v. ITALY) (......) "In a will of 1 October 1918 Antonio
Durini left the whole of his estate to a foundation of which his cousin, Paolina Durini, was to be the first president She
was to be succeeded as president by her eldest born male descendants" (......) "...the court held that under the terms of the will Teobaldo Durini
alone had the right to live in the castle" (......) "The
applicants allege that (......) a will
(......) which obliged them, on the death of the first applicant's husband, the father of the other applicants, to leave the castle where they lived (......) infringed their rights under Article 8 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No 1". (......)
"The Commission notes that in this case the situation complained of by the
applicants originated in the terms of a will which it is not for the State to alter,
(......) "Commission considers that the applicants' complaints concern the content of the will and are directed in
substance against the testator". (......) "...the
Commission notes in the first place that the right to live in the castle (which
belongs to the foundation) is not a "possession" within the meaning of Article I of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention" (......)).
Primjedba B.S.: Kao što se vidi iz gornjega, pravo na stanovanje u zgradi pripadalo je,
prema oporuci, samo jednoj muškoj osobi, s kojom su stanovali i članovi (članice) njegove obitelji, koji su
smjeli stanovati zajedno s njim (za vrijeme njegovog života). Dakle, ti članovi obitelji nisu imali ni pravo vlasništva,
ni trajno pravo stanovanja, niti se radilo o njihovom dugotrajnom najmu (ili slično), pa zato, po shvaćanju Suda, to
njihovo "pravo na stanovanje" ("right to live") ne spada u pojam "possessions" u smislu članka 1. Prvog protokola. (Naprotiv,
stanarsko pravo je vječno, isključivo pravo i imovina nositelja stanarskog prava, koja ima veliku ekonomsku vrijednost i spada u "possessions").
--------------------------
2. DECISION -
APPLICATION No. 125/05 by Branko RAŠETA against Croatia
(......) The applicant’s mother was a holder of a specially protected
tenancy on a flat in Karlovac, owned by a public company, Croatian Post and Telecommunications (Hrvatska pošta i telekomunikacije (......) Marija Rašeta herself made a request to purchase the flat (......) the court sees
no need to establish his status as a member of [his mother’s] household (......)
her son as a member of her household
does not have this right. (......)
The Court notes that at the time of her death the applicant’s mother
was not the owner of the flat in question and that therefore the applicant could not have inherited the flat. (......) the applicant had no legitimate expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to purchase the flat in question. (......) It follows that this complaint
is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected (Napomena
B.S.: Stanarsko
pravo je mogao naslijediti član obiteljskog kućanstva, ali takav član, dok nije postao nositelj stanarskog
prava, nije imao pravo na otkup stana bez suglasnosti dotadašnjeg nositelja. Majka je bila
nositeljica stanarskog prava, ali, navodno, nije postala zemljišno-knjižnom vlasnicom. Sud se nije izjasnio o tome je li stanarsko pravo "possessions").
--------------------------
3. DECISION - Application no. 1384/03
by Branko and Slaviša GARIĆ against Croatia (......) The applicants are co-owners of the first floor of a house in Dubrovnik. (......) N.S. acquired specially protected tenancy on the entire house. (......) Under
the relevant legislation, the holders of specially protected tenancies on privately owned flats were granted the position
of protected tenants (“zaštićeni najmoprimci”). On 23 March 1999 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court ordered the applicants to conclude the contract with
N.S. (......). the applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention that their property rights were violated in that the courts disabled them from using their flat. (......) ...even considering that there has been an interference with the applicants’
rights under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, such an interference was necessary for the control
of property in public interest. (Napomena B.S.: Sud kaže
da je u tom slučaju bilo opravdano kontrolirati imovinu (vlasništvo) radi javnog interesa. Sud se nije izjasnio
je li stanarsko pravo "possessions").
--------------------------
4. DECISION - Application No. 43447/98 -
Brano Sorić v. Croatia
Napomena B.S.: Europski sud nije se izjasnio o tome, je li stanarsko pravo "possessions" [Sud je u svojoj odluci
prešutio glavne činjenice i naveo neistine. Itd. -
O svemu tome vidi:
https://soric-b.tripod.com/dokumenti/ ,
https://soric-b.tripod.com/dokumenti/id11.html itd.].
--------------------------
|