CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION Application no. 23662/12 Slavko VUKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 6 April 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Slavko Vuković, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Split. He is represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Mirošević, a lawyer practising in Split. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1983 and 1985 the applicant’s predecessor’s house and a plot of land in Split were expropriated but the compensation was not awarded. In the subsequent administrative proceedings concerning the compensation, a property expert, R.M., on 3 April 2002 drew up a report establishing the market value of the expropriated property. Based on that report, on 23 June 2004 the Splitsko-dalmatinska County Office of the State Administration ( Ured državne uprave u Splitsko-dalmatinskoj županiji ; hereinafter: the “County Office”) awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 7,338,715.80 Croatian kunas. On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal before the Ministry of Justice ( Ministarstvo pravosuđa Republike Hrvatske ; hereinafter: the “Ministry”) against the above decision arguing that under the relevant domestic law the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of the market value at the moment when the decision on compensation was adopted. He submitted a number of evidence, such as newspaper articles and decisions on compensation in other cases, pointing out that the marked value had increased. On 31 May 2005 the Ministry dismissed the applicant’s appeal in part which concerned the compensation for expropriation of the house and the plot of land on the ground that certain evidence which the applicant submitted concerned a different situation and that the market value in the 2002 expert report had been set out in Euros which secured the consistency of the price. In 2005 the applicant lodged an action in the Split County Court ( Županijski sud u Splitu ) arguing that the amount of compensation had not been established according to the relevant law. On 26 March 2007 the Split County Court dismissed his action on the ground that all the relevant facts had been sufficiently established and that the value set out in Euros secured the consistency of the amount for compensation. The applicant further lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 29 April 2008 his appeal on points of law was dismissed as ill founded. Against the decision of the Supreme Court the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his previous arguments. On 29 September 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded, endorsing the arguments of the lower courts. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant parts of the Expropriation Act ( Zakon o izvlaštenju , Official Gazette nos. 9/1994 and 35/1994) read as follows: Section 33 “... compensation shall be awarded as a sum of money equivalent to the market value of the expropriated property at the time of the adoption of the first-instance decision or a friendly settlement.”   Section 46 “This Act is applicable to all expropriation proceedings where, at the moment when this Act comes into force, the final decision was not adopted as well to the proceedings for the award of compensation where a final decision was not adopted or it was annulled or quashed.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the failure of the domestic authorities to apply the relevant domestic law properly deprived him of the appropriate compensation for expropriation. The applicant also complains, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, about the fairness of the expropriation proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions concerning the appropriate amount of compensation for expropriation, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3. If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?   4. In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V; and Vajagić v. Croatia , no. 30431/03, § 38 20 July 2006)?