To the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb
PLAINTIFFS:
1. MLADEN KRUPA
DURDICA KRUPA
Both from Karlovac, Domobranska 8, represented by their proxy
Mario Jutt, an Attorney-at-Law, from Karlovac,
hereby file a -
Constitutional Complaint
for a Breach of Constitutional Rights
from the Article 14, 19, 26 and 28
of the Constitution of the Republic
of Croatia.
Twice – enclosures;
A/ Power of Attorney
B/ Certified copy of the Decision of Destraint OVR-604/03 of April 18, 2003
C/ Appeal against the decision OVR-604/03
D/ Letter of the CHC to the Court of November 20, 2008
E/ Letter of the CHC to the Government of the Republic of Croatia of November 20, 2008
F/ Letter of the CHC to the Ministry of November 20, 2008
G/ Statement of the Chair of the CHC of November 26, 2008
H/ Decision Gzp-103/08
_________________________________
1. By the decision on destraint of the Municipal Court in Karlova No.: Ovr-604/03 of April 18, 2003 the destraint proposed by the destrainer Zagrebacka Banka d.d. Zagreb upon the destraint proposal of April 14, 2003 was ordered. Exhibit under Closure B/.
2. Through their Proxy the destrainees as plaintiffs filed an appeal in due time against the Decision on Destraint No.: Ovr-604/03 of April 18, 2003 in which, among other things, they raised objections to the evidence in support of the proposal, the amount of debt as of March 1, 2003 and suggested an accounting expert report. Exhibit: Appeal of June 6, 2003, under Eclosure C/.
3. The Court was not deciding on the objection to the justification of the debt and the amount, the fact that could not be known to the plaintiffs as mortgage sureties since the credit was the obligation of the firm AutoKrupa d.d. to ZABA (The Bank) and the firm AutoKrupa d.d. Claimed that all their credit commitments had been fulfilled in full. Despite the objection to the justification and the amount, the Court failed to instruct the plaintiffs to submit a claim for destraint impermissibility so the plaintiffs initiated, of their own initiative, such proceedings in the Municipal Court in Zagreb on October 30, 2003 under N.: P-10829/03. The claim was handed over to the Municipal Court in Karlovac under No.: P-747/04 (Judge Strucelj) i.e. the same Judge that was deciding in the destraint proceedings No.: Ovr-604/03.
Judge Strucelj scheduled the first hearing on the claim No.: P-747/04 for November 13, 2007, i.e. four years after the date the action for a distraint impermissibility was instituted. This is impermissible because because the claim for a destraint impermissibilty is prejudicial issue for the execution of the destraint and despite a number of plaintiffs submissions to this Court in the destraint proceedings No.: Ovr-604/03 (objections, appeals, exemption claims, proposals for the termination of the proceedings, proposals for the postponement of the destraint), the judge, without establishing the amount of the debt and its justification, carried out all the destraint actions and made decisions and conclusions until the public auction (To the Reader: These auctions sold the AutoKrupa Engineering Facility and Car Dealership Offices), and at the third public auction on November 6, 2007 sold the real estate (the Flat where four [Krupa] families – 12 members live) for a scandalously low amount. So far, a scheduled settlement hearing has not been held and the judge continued the destraint by depossessing - evicting the persons (12) and things from the plaintiffs flat that was bought at the public auction by Vesna Rodic, a third party. Up to this day the judge has not paid off the destrainer Zagrebacka Banka d.d. Upon their destrant claim and, from the selling price, (nor) the plaintiffs as destrainees. It seems the aim of these destraint proceedings No.: Ovr-604/03 was to sell the real estate to Vesna Rodic and not to pay off a possible debt whose amount or justification had not been established. Exhibit: As above and the document of the Municipal Court in Karlovac No.: Ovr-604/03, document of the Municipal Court No.: P-747/04 on destraint impermissibility and the decision of the County Court in Karlovac No.: Gzp-103/08 – Enclosure under H/.
4. Regardless of the claim for destraint impermissibility with the proposal for ordering a temporary measure in the document of the Municipal Court in Karlovac No.: P-747/04 (the proceedings had not validly finished yet), Judge Strucelj did not postpone or suspend the destraint by eviction from the falt and giving the flat to the new owner. He, as a destraint Judge, and even the County Court in Karlovac, did not take into account legal reasons determined by the Article 6 and 61 of the Destraint Act and, in the meantime, because of the claim for the completion of the proceedings in a reasonable time (Gtp-103/08) (was) made without carrying out (listening to) the plaintiffs evidence, a negative first-instance ruling in which he did decide on or explain the proposal for ordering a temporary measure. The third public auction was carried out by the same judge (Strucelj) on November 6, 2007 i.e. before the first hearing in the case No.:P-747/04 for destraint impermissibility was scheduled, the first hearing (for destraint impermissibility) was held on November 13, 2007. (a full week after the judge had sold the Krupa's flat and belongings at public auction). Exhibit: As above
5. On November 20, 2008, the Chair of the CHC sent a letter to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia for the attention of the President, a letter to the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the attention of the President and a letter to the Ministry of Physical Planning and Construction for the attention of the Minister, informing them that the experts of the CHC had found irregularities and breaches of law the details of which would be sent to the above institutions. They also issued a declaration – a statement made by the Chair of the Croatian Helsinki committee Ivo Banac on 26 November 2008 but none of the above named have reacted yet although it is a case of serious irregularities and breaches of law at the expense of the plaintiffs and their family.
Exhibit: Enclosures under D, E, F, and G and as above.
6. In terms (of) the Article 63 of the Constitutional Law on the (and the) Constitutional Court, since the above stated and described reasons show that the disputed acts violate (the) plaintiffs' constitutional rights and since it is obvious that notinstituting constitutional proceedings will cause severe and incorrigible consequences to the complainant (plaintiffs) and, in terms of the Article 45 of the same act, we hereby propose that before making a final decision, the execution of the individual acts and actions based on the law and whose compliance with the Constitution and Law is being assessed to be temporarily suspended since by their execution the plaintiffs could suffer severe and incorrigible consequences which are stated and described in the destraint proceeding No.: Ovr-604/03, and since the legal destraint proceedings have not been completed yet which indicates the legal possibilities in these proceedings have not yet been exhausted and since the plaintiffs' rights have been violated and since, by such actions of the Court the plaintiffs' Constitutional rights from the Article(s) 14, 19, 26 and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia are severely violated and since it is obvious that by not istituting Constitutional Court proceedings could cause severe and incorrigible consequences to the complainants in terms of the Article 63 of the Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, we hereby propose that the Constitutional Court institute proceedings on this constitutional complaint and make the following
Ruling
1. The Constitutional Complaint is hereby adopted.
2. All the actions of the Municipal Court in Karlovac in the destraint proceedings No.: Ovr-604/03 after the appeal against the decision on destraint of April 18, 2003 are hereby invalidated and the said actions have no legal effect.
3. All the Courts in the jurisdiction are of Karlovac are exempted from these destraint proceedings and the proceedings will be held at the Court determined by The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia.
4. The execution of the individual actions based on the Law is temporarily suspended until this Court makes a final decision.
Karlovac, November 20, 2009. Plaintiffs through the Proxy
(signed – signature illegible)
Seal: Mario Jutt
Attorney-at Law
Krizaniceva 3
47000 Karlovac
Croatia
I, Davorka Vouk, a permanent translator and interpreter, duly sworn by the decreeof the President of the County Court in Karlovac No.: 4-Su 405/06-2 of August 10, 2006, hereby attest that the above translation corresponds to its original in the Croatian language.
In Karlovac this day....December 11, 2009.
Signed.... Davorka Vouk.
0 comments:
Post a Comment