JAKELJIC v. CROATIA - 22768/12 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) [2016] ECHR 587 (28 June 2016)

JAKELJIC v. CROATIA - 22768/12 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Second Section)) [2016] ECHR 587 (28 June 2016)

The applicants' claim to ownership of the land had a sufficient basis in national law at the relevant time, as their predecessors had satisfied the requirements for adverse possession under the 1811 Civil Code and section 388(4) of the 1996 Property Act before its invalidation. The subsequent invalidation of the provision should not retroactively deprive the applicants of their acquired rights, especially where no third-party interests were involved. The State must bear the consequences of its own legislative errors, not the individual.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 587
Parties
Applicant: Applicants (names not specified); Respondent: Split Township (Grad Split)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Declaration of Ownership and Registration in Land Register / Judgment of European Court of Human Rights Following Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Including Constitutional Court Decision
Outcome
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found; application admissible; finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage; costs and expenses awarded; remainder of claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Ownership of Socially Owned Property, Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions, Application of Invalidated Legislation, Reopening of Proceedings After ECHR Judgment
Property Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Ownership of Socially Owned Property Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions Application of Invalidated Legislation Reopening of Proceedings After ECHR Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicants (names not specified)

Applicant

Split Township (Grad Split)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Declaration of Ownership and Registration in Land Register / Judgment of European Court of Human Rights Following Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Including Constitutional Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants acquired ownership of land by adverse possession under Croatian law
  2. 2 Whether the invalidation of section 388(4) of the 1996 Property Act affected applicants' property rights
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights were violated

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' claim to ownership of the land had a sufficient basis in national law at the relevant time, as their predecessors had satisfied the requirements for adverse possession under the 1811 Civil Code and section 388(4) of the 1996 Property Act before its invalidation. The subsequent invalidation of the provision should not retroactively deprive the applicants of their acquired rights, especially where no third-party interests were involved. The State must bear the consequences of its own legislative errors, not the individual.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention found; application admissible; finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage; costs and expenses awarded; remainder of claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicants jointly EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses within three months, plus any tax chargeable, to be converted into Croatian kunas at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.
  • From expiry of three months until settlement, simple interest payable at the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.