CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 7 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44792/16 Janko OREŠČANIN against Croatia lodged on 28 July 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Janko Oreščanin, is a Croatian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Vrginmost. He is represented before the Court by Mr   L.   Šušak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 1991 the armed conflict escalated in Croatia. During 1991 and 1992 Serbian paramilitary forces gained control of about one third of the territory of Croatia and proclaimed the so-called “Serbian Autonomous region of Krajina” ( Srpska autonomna oblast Krajina , hereinafter “Krajina”). At the beginning of August 1995 the Croatian authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over Krajina. The action was codenamed “Storm” and lasted from 4 to 7   August 1995. The applicant lived in the village of Blatuša, on the territory of Krajina. When operation “Storm” was announced, he fled Croatia. On 26 June 2004 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Gvozd Municipal Court, seeking damages in the amount of 625,649   Croatian kuna in relation to the theft of his movable property and the burning of his house in Blatuša, allegedly by members of the Croatian army. He alleged that at the start of operation Storm, a unit of the Croatian army had been stationed in his house. The members of that unit had stolen items of his movable property and had then burned down his house. During the proceedings several witnesses testified that they had seen Croatian soldiers stationed in the applicant’s house, who had taken objects from it and then burnt down the house and some of its contents. On 4 June 2007 the Gvozd Municipal Court dismissed the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff had not proved that his house had been burnt down and his property taken by members of the Croatian army and that the damage for which he sought compensation was not war-related. This judgment was upheld on appeal before the Sisak County Court on 13 February 2014 and the Supreme Court on 11 March 2015. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 11   February 2016 by the Constitutional Court This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 19 February 2016. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention that the findings of the national courts were completely arbitrary and motivated by his Serb ethnicity. He further complains that the national courts failed to recognise that there had been no justifiable reason for the destruction of his property nor any military need for it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?