CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 87 June 2006 Buj v. Croatia - 24661/02 Judgment 1.6.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Delay in registration of ownership change following inheritance proceedings: violation   Facts : In 1994 the applicant’s mother died and inheritance proceedings were initiated. By decision of a municipal court in 1999 the property of the deceased was distributed between the applicant and his brother. Ownership of the property was to be registered after the decision had become final. An appeal lodged by the applicant’s brother was declared inadmissible and was served on the applicant’s representative in 2002. The applicant’s ownership of the inherited property has to date not been recorded in the land register. Law :Article 6(1) – The Government had argued that this provision did not apply as the inheritance proceedings per se had been non-contentious and the subsequent registration of ownership was to be done by the same local court of its own motion and not on a request by the applicant. At any rate, the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint, which was an effective remedy for the length of the inheritance proceedings. With regard to the inheritance proceedings per se , the Court found it unnecessary to determine the issue of applicability, having accepted the Government’s non-exhaustion argument. The inscription of the ownership change produced by the court decision in the inheritance proceedings was to be carried out ex officio by the land registry division of the same court. Hence those proceedings served as a functional equivalent to enforcement. Whether or not Article 6 had been applicable to the inheritance proceedings as such, an enforcement title determining civil rights did not necessarily have to result from proceedings to which this provision had applied. The municipal court’s decision had constituted an enforcement title, regardless of the nature of the inheritance proceedings. Even though under domestic law the inscription of the applicant’s right to ownership in the instant case would not be considered a constitutive one, the ensuing proceedings in the land registry were decisive for the effective exercise of his rights, that is to say the free enjoyment of his ownership. Prior to that inscription, the applicant continues to be severely limited in disposing freely of his property. Consequently, Article 6(1) applied to those proceedings. The enforcement of the decision given in the inheritance proceedings, in the form of registration of property in the applicant’s name, had been pending for more than four years, without a single decision to that end. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13 – The Court noted the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have complained about the excessive length of the land registry proceedings. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – 2,400   euros   for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes