CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 décembre 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10027FC0 { margin-left:5.4pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2C68B0A7 { height:12.25pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF29177A6 { height:1pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2E49B105 { background-color:#ffffff } .sC41F0EA6 { font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)385 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Seven cases against Croatia   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2025 at the 1545 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 12027/10 STATILEO 10/07/2014 10/10/2014 35444/12+ BEGO AND OTHERS 15/11/2016 15/11/2016 25815/14 MIROŠEVIĆ-ANZULOVIĆ 04/10/2016 04/10/2016 37006/13 GOŠOVIĆ 04/04/2017 04/04/2017 23414/15+ SKELIN-HRVOJ AND ĐURIČIĆ 10/06/2021 10/06/2021 48981/17 ARAMBAŠIN 23/06/2022 23/06/2022 41306/18 HEGEDIŠ 23/06/2022 23/06/2022   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their   property between 1997 and 2015   on account of statutory limitations on the landlords’ use of private flats, including through the rent control scheme for flats subject to protected leases (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government and their further submissions indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see documents DH-DD(2025)1137 , DH-DD(2025)1221 , DH-DD(2025)1222 );   Recalling that in these judgments the Court identified three main legislative shortcomings concerning the protected lease scheme, notably the inadequate level of protected rent, restrictive conditions for the termination of protected leases and the absence of any temporal limitation to the protected lease scheme;     Welcoming the adoption, in March 2024 , by the Croatian Parliament of the Law on the implementation of the European Court’s judgments of the Statileo group (12027/10+) and the Constitutional Court’s decision (U-I-3242/2018) (the 2024 Law) which entered into force in April 2024 addressing the above shortcomings and striking the requisite balance between the interests of landlords and the general interest of the community; considering that the 2024 Law appears capable of securing a   global solution to the issue of the protected lease scheme and thus preventing similar violations in the future;   Welcoming further the operational measures taken by the respondent State, including significant budgetary allocations secured for the full implementation of the 2024 Law which clearly demonstrate the long-term commitment to achieving a lasting global solution to the structural problem identified by the Court;   Noting further that the compensatory remedy, established by the Supreme Court in December 2018 and previously noted with satisfaction by the Committee, continues to function well and reflect the Convention standards set out in the Statileo group of cases;   Considering therefore that the respondent State has taken the appropriate legislative and other general measures, to secure the delicate balance between the interests of landlords and protected tenants;   Having thus satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.