CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 26 October 2020 Published on 16 November 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 64795/19 Milutin GRBAC against Croatia lodged on 2 December 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a property dispute between the applicant and the local authorities. The applicant claims to have ex lege acquired ownership of a certain plot of land (a croft adjoining his house) by adverse possession as he and his legal predecessors had possessed that plot for more than 80 years. The case also concerns the domestic courts shifting on the applicant the burden of proving when the land in question was transferred into social ownership even though the relevant records (the land register) – which had to be kept by the State – were destroyed.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the refusal of the domestic courts to acknowledge the applicant’s ownership of the plot of land he claims to have acquired by adverse possession, in violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Trgo v. Croatia , no. 35298/04, 11 June 2009)?   2.     Was the domestic courts’ decision to shift on the applicant the burden of proving when the land in question was transferred into social ownership even though the relevant records (the land register) were destroyed, in violation of his right of access to a court or his right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?