Naslov
Ugovor o najmu stana sa zaštićenom najamninom
(Protected Flat Renting Contract)

Autori
Franić, Milan

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Ocjenski radovi, diplomski rad, diplomski

Fakultet
Pravni fakultet

Mjesto
Split

Datum
04.12

Godina
2006

Stranica
67

Mentor
Petrić, Silvija

Ključne riječi
stanarsko pravo; ugovor o najmu stana sa zaštićenom najamninom; denacionalizacija; praksa hrvatskih sudova
(socialist tenancy right; protected flat renting; denationalization; jurisprudence of Croatian courts)

Sažetak
Rad ima 67 stranica i 108 bilješki. U Uvodu (str. 3) se navodi da je rad podijeljen na tri dijela: Od stanarskog prava do najma stana sa zaštićenom najamninom (I. dio, str. 4-13), Ugovor o najmu stana sa zaštićenom najamninom (II. dio, str. 14-57) i Analiza slučaja iz sudske prakse Županijskog suda u Splitu (III. dio, str. 58-62). Dijelovi rada su podijeljeni na odjele i odsjeke, kojih je ukupno 41. Na kraju rada je Zaključak (str. 63) i Popis literature (str. 64-67). Od literature su korištene 3 monografije, 8 članaka, 13 pravnih propisa i 20 sudskih odluka. U prvom dijelu Od stanarskog prava do najma stana sa zaštićenom najamninom daju se pojašnjenja osnovnih pojmova te se navodi kronologija prelaska sa starog na novi sustav stambenih odnosa, koji je proveden donošenjem niza pravnih propisa u periodu od prosinca 1990. do ožujka 2006. Navodi se razlikovanje na oduzete, društvene i privatne stanove, karakteristično za stambeno pravo bivše države, a zasnovano na kriteriju pravnog režima stana. Potom se analizira ustavna i zakonska definicija stanarskog prava, pojašanjava se njegova pravna narav kao socijalističkog prava sa stvarnopravnim i obveznopravnim obilježjima, naslovi i načini stjecanja i razlozi prestanka. Kronologija uspostave novog stambenopravnog režima otvorena je navođenjem Ustava RH (NN br. 41/01 i 55/01, stupio na snagu 22. prosinca 1990.) koji ne spominje društveno vlasništvo i stanarskog pravo, a propisuje obvezu i rok za usklađivanje svih drugih propisa s Ustavom. Potom je Zakonom o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo (NN br. 43/92, 69/92, 25/93, 26/93, 48/93, 2/94, 44/94, 47/94, 58/95, 103/95, 11/96, 11/97, 68/98, 163/98, 22/99, 96/99, 120/00, 94/01 i 78/02 ; stupio na snagu 19. lipnja 1991. ; dalje: Zakon o prodaji stanova) uredio problem društvenih stanova. Propisao je pravo nositelja socijalističkog stanarskog prava na društvenom stanu da kupnjom stana po povlaštenoj cijeni i upisom prava vlasništva u zemljišnu knjigu stekne pravo vlasništva na stanu. Zakon o najmu stanova ( NN br. 91/96, 48/98, 66/98 i 22/06 ; stupio na snagu 5. studenog 1996. ; dalje: ZNS) regulirao je problem privatnih i preostalih neotkupljenih društvenih stanova. Ukinuo je socijalističko stanarsko pravo i propisao kako nositelji socijalističkog stanarskog prava na privatnim stanovima i na društvenim stanovima neotkupljenim zbog postojanja zakonske zapreke stječu status najmoprimca s pravom ugovaranja zaštićene najamnine. Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za vrijeme jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine (NN br. 92/96, 92/99, 80/02 i 81/02 ; stupio na snagu 1. siječnja 1997. ; dalje: Zakon o naknadi) riješio je problem oduzetih stanova (nacionalizirani i konfiscirani stanovi). Za nacionalizirane stanove na kojim je zasnovano socijalističko stanarsko pravo propisano je da prijašnji vlasnik stječe prvo na naknadu, a nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava pravo na otkup. Za nacionalizirane stanove na kojima nije zasnovano socijalističko stanarsko pravo propisano je kako se vraćaju u vlasništvo i posjed prijašnjem vlasniku. Za konfiscirane stanove na kojim je zasnovano socijalističko stanarsko pravo propisano je kako se vraćaju u vlasništvo, ali ne i u posjed, prijašnjem vlasniku, a nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava da stječe status zaštićenog najmoprimca. Posljednji propis donesen u ovoj oblati je Zakon o prodaji stanova namijenjenih za nadstojnika stambene zgrade (NN br. 22/06, stupio na snagu 3. ožujka 2006.), koji propisuje da osobe koje koriste nadstojnički stan ili stan nastao prenamjenom zajedničkih prostorija u stambenoj zgradi imaju pravo u propisanom prekluzivnom roku izabrati između otkupa i zaštićenog unajmljivanja tog stana. Dva su zaključka prvog dijela rada. Prvi je zaključak kako je stari stambenopravni režim bio zasnovan na institutu socijalističkog stanarskog prava, dok je novi stambenopravni režim zasnovan na institutima najma i vlasništva, u koje je pretvoreno socijalističko stanarsko pravo. Drugi je zaključak kako novi stambenopravni režim obiluje pravnim prazninama kojima su posljedični prijepori u sudskoj praksi, analizirani nastavno. U drugom, i glavnom, dijelu rada Ugovor o najmu stana sa zaštićenom najamninom cjelovito je analiziran ovaj institut. Navodi se zakonska definicija ovog ugovora, analizira se njegova pravna narav i specifične karakteristike (nedostatak stranačke autonomije i konsenzualnosti), vlasnik, zaštićeni najmoprimac i članovi obiteljskog domaćinstva zaštićenog najmoprimca upisani u ugovor – svi kao subjekti ugovora te njihove obveze i prava, specifičan postupak sklapanja, sadržaj ugovora s naglaskom na pojam stana i zaštićene najmnine kao nužan sadržaj, pisana forma ugovora s naglaskom na mogućnost sklapanja ugovora u formi sudske odluke povodom tužbenog zahtjeva zaštićenog najmoprimca protiv vlasnika koji odbija sklopiti ugovor, razlozi i načini prestanka ugovora te sredstva pravne zaštite prava stranaka iz ugovora. Poseban naglasak u drugom dijelu rada je na analizi pitanja koja su se u sudskoj praksi pokazala spornima. Prvo takvo pitanje je ima li bivši nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava obvezu sklopiti ugovor o zaštićenom najmu s vlasnikom stana. Iz analiziranih odluka proizlazi kako je sudska praksa zauzela stav da ima. Budući da bivši nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava, osim ugovora o zaštićenom najmu, nema druge osnove korištenja stana, ako ovaj ugovor ne bude sklopljen, tada vlasnik može prema bivšem nositelju stanarskog prava osnovano ustati tužbom na iseljenje. Iznimno, kada su bivšeg nositelja stanarskog prava u sklapanju ugovora spriječili opravdani razlozi, dužan je sklopiti ugovor čim ovi razlozi prestanu. Drugo je pitanje pravne naravi rokova iz čl. 33. ZNS, kojim je propisano kako je nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava dužan u roku 6 mjeseci od stupanja na snagu ZNS staviti vlasniku pisanu ponudu za sklapanje ugovora o zaštićenom najmu stana, te kako nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava ima pravo u roku 3 mjeseca od dana kada je vlasnik zaprimio njegovu pisanu ponudu, u slučaju da ugovor nije skopljen, podići tužbu protiv vlasnika tražeći od suda da donese presudu koja zamjenjuje ugovor. Ključni problem u sudskoj praksi bilo je pitanje jesu li ovi rokovi prekluzivni. U slučaju da jesu, bivši nositelj stanarskog prava istekom istih izgubio bi pravo sklopiti ugovor i tako ostao bez pravne osnove korištenja stana i izložio se riziku da ga vlasnik iseli sudskim putem. Iz analize sudskih odluka, stavova zauzetih na sastancima sudskih odjela po ovom pitanju, kao i relevantne pravne literature, proizlazi zaključak kako je prevladavajući stav sudske prakse da se ne radi o prekluzivnim nego tek instruktivnim rokovima. Ovo znači da propustom istih bivši nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava neće izgubiti pravo sklopiti ugovor o zaštićenom najmu s vlanikom. Ovo ipak ne znači da je u pogledu trenutka sklapanja ugovora bivši nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava vremenski neograničen. Pravna osnova korištenja stana ne prestaje mu već protekom ovog roka, nego u trenutku od kojeg se može osnovano smatrati kako neopravdano odbija sklopiti ugovor. Ovaj trenutak sud mora utvrditi kao materijalnopravno relevantno pitanje u slučajevima kad vlasnik ustane tužbom na iseljenje protiv bivšeg nositelja socijalističkog stanarskog prava. Teći je problem sudske interpretacije odredbe čl. 31 ZNS koja propisuje da pravo na zaštićenu najamninu nema onaj bivši nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava koji u vlasništvu ima useljivu kuću ili stan. S tim u vezi pojavila su se dva sporna pitanja u sudskoj praksi. Prvo je pitanje može li se kuća za odmor smatrati useljivom kućom u smislu citirane odredbe. Vrhovni sud RH, u odluci broj Rev 40/99 od 10. lipnja 1999., argumentom prirode stvari zauzeo je stajalište da se kuća za odmor ne može smatrati useljivom kućom u smislu čl. 31. ZNS, jer je to kuća posebne namijene, pa tako nije namijenjena niti stanovanju niti iznajmljivanju za vrijeme cijele godine, nego u jednom kratkom razdoblju za vrijeme godišnjeg odmora. Stoga vlasništvo kuće za odmor nije zapreka bivšem nositelju socijalističkog stanarskog prava za ugovaranje zaštićenje najamnine. Zaključuje se kako je ovo shvaćanje, koje polazi od argumenta prirode stvari, logično i prihvatljivo. Nadalje, iz analiziranih odluka proizlazi kako ga je praksa nižih sudova bez iznimke prihvatila. Drugo je pitanje može li pravo na zaštićenu najamninu isključiti to što bračni drug nositelja bivšeg socijalističkog stanarskog prava ima u vlasništvu useljivu kuću ili stan. Iz analiziranih odluka proizlazi da je sudska praksa neopredjeljena, jer je u pojedinim slučajevima ova okolnost ocijenjena kao zapreka, dok u drugima nije. U radu je zauzeto stajalište kako se ipak radi o zapreci za ugovaranje zaštićene najamnine, a koje polazi od teleološkog tumačenja odredbe i bolje pogađa ratio ovog instituta, jer sprječava zlouporabe instituta zaštićenog najma od strane bivših nositelja socijalističkog stanarskog prava koji već imaju riješeno stanarsko pitanje. Četvrti problem nastao je ukidanjem odredbe čl. 40. st. 2. ZNS od strane Ustavnog suda RH (odluka broj U-I-762/96 do 188/98, NN br. 48/98 i 69/98, stupila na snagu 6. listopada 1998.) koja je propisivala da je vlasnik dužan zaštićenom najmoprimcu osigurati drugi useljivi stan kada mu otkazuje ugovor zbog toga što u stan namjerava useliti ili što useljava svoje potomke. Kako Hrvatski sabor do danas nije popunio ovim stvorenu pravnu prazninu, pojavilo se pitanje može li ju sud popuniti analogijom u konkretnom slučaju. U analiziranim slučajevima sud se nije usudio popunjavati ovu pravnu prazninu, zauzimajući stav kako mu, obzirom na to da je citirana odredba ukinuta, ne preostaje drugo no presuditi iseljenje zaštićenog najmoprimca bez da mu je vlasnik dužan osigurati drugi odgovarajući stan. U praksi su zaštićeni najmoprimci protiv presuda o iseljenju podizali ustavne tužbe. Ustavni sud RH (u odluci broj U-III-135/03 od 20. travnja 2003.) zauzeo je stav da se odgađa ovrha pravomoćne presude o iseljenju do donošenja drugačije odluke Ustavnog suda. U trećem je dijelu rada analiziran slučaj iz prakse Županijskog suda u Splitu (broj predmeta II P 403/98), pa ovdje kratko izlažemo činjenično stanje predmeta i pravno shvaćanje suda. Tužiteljica je kod Općinskog suda u Splitu 18. ožujka 1998. ustala protiv tuženika tužbom kojom zahtijeva da sud donese presudu koja će zamijeniti ugovor o zaštićenom najmu stana. Navodi se kao je tužiteljica bila nositelj socijalističkog stanarskog prava na tom stanu. Traži se da se u ugovor kao članovi obiteljskog domaćinstva tužiteljice upišu njen sin i njena unuka. Tužiteljica je preminula 11. veljače 2001., a na njeno mjesto u parnicu je stupio njen sin kao jedini nasljednik. Tuženik je 2. svibnja 2001. ustao protutžbom radi iseljenja. Činjenično i pravno nije bilo prijeporno da je tužiteljica bila nositeljica socijalističkog stanarskog prava na stanu, a tuženik da je vlasnik ovog stana. Činjenično je prijeporno jesu li tužiteljicini sin i unuka kroz svo vrijeme od stupanja na snagu ZNS pa nadalje živjeli u predmetnom stanu kao članovi njenog obiteljskog domaćinstva. Drugim riječima, pravno je prijeporno jesu li tužiteljicini sin i unuka u smislu čl. 37. ZNS bili članovi njenog obiteljskog domaćinsta te prelaze li na njih nakon njene smrti prava i obveze zaštićenog najmoprimca kako to predviđa odredba čl. 38. ZNS. Sud je u dokaznom postupku utvrdio kako su tužiteljicini sin i unuka iselili iz predmetnog stanu 1992., da bi se u isti ponovno uselili tek nakon tužiteljicine smrti. Iz toga je sud zaključio kako u trenutku stupanja na snagu ZNS oni nisu bili članovi tužiteljicinog obiteljskog domačinstva u smislu odredbe čl. 37. ZNS, pa da stoga na njih niti ne prelaze prava i obveze zaštićenog najmoprimca kako predviđa odredba čl. 38. ZNS. Slijedom navedenog, tužbeni zahtjev na donošenje presude koja zamjenjuje ugovor o zaštićenom najmu odbijen je, a usvojen je protutužbeni zahtjev radi iseljenja. Županijski sud u Splitu (odlukom broj Gž 1989/03 od 17. rujna 2004.) odbio je žalbu tužitelja kao neosnovanu i potvrdio pobijanu prvostupanjsku odluku.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo

Napomena
ABSTRACT (eng.): DIPLOMA THESIS ABSTRACT Thesis: PROTECTED FLAT RENTING CONTRACT Name and surname of the student: MILAN FRANIĆ Name of institution: University of Split, Faculty of Law Course: Civil Law II Advisor: dr. Silvija Petric, Full Professor Date of oral exame on the thesis : 4 December 2006 The paper contains 67 pages with 108 notes. In the Introduction (p. 3) it is stated that the text is divided into three sections: From the socialist tenancy right to protected flat renting contract (Part I, pp. 4-13), Protected Flat Rrenting Contract (Part II, pp. 14-57) and Analysis of the case from the jurisprudence of the Split County Court (Part III, pp. 58-62). Parts of the paper are divided into 41 sections in total. At the end of the paper there are Conclusion (p. 63) and References (p. 64-67). Among references, 3 monographs, 8 articles , 13 regulations and 20 court decisions are cited through the paper. In the first part From the socialist tenancy right to protected flat renting contract explanations of basic terms are given. Also, the chronology of transition from old to new system of the rights on the flat is presented, carried out by making a series of legal regulations in the period from December 1990 by March 2006. It describes the division into seized, public and private flats, which is characteristic of the former system of the rights on flat, and based on the criterion of the legal regime over flats. Then constitutional and legal definition of the socialist tenancy right is analyzed, as well as its peculiar legal nature which combines in rem and in personam characteristics. The principles of acquiring and reasons for termination of the socialist tanancy right are also analyzed. The chronology of establishing a new regime of the rights on the flat starts with the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette no. 41/01 and 55/01, entered into force on 22 December 1990) which does not mention public ownership, nor even the socialist tenancy right, and imposes a duty and the deadline for compliance of all other regulations with the Constitution. Then the Law on Sale of Apartments with Socialist Tenancy Rights Act (Official Gazette no. 43/92, 69/92, 25/93, 26/93, 48/93, 2 / 94, 44/94, 47/94, 58/95 , 103/95, 11/96, 11/97, 68/98, 163/98, 22/99, 96/99, 120/00, 94/01 and 78/02 ; entered into force on 19 June 1991 ; hereafter: the Act on the Sale) regulated the problem of public flats, prescribing that holders of socialist tenancy right over the flats in the public ownership are entitled to buy the flat at preferential prices and to register their ownership in the land register in order to acquire ownership of the flat. Flat Renting Act (Official Gazette no. 91/96, 48/98, 66/98 and 22/06, entered into force on 5 November 1996 ; hereafter: ZNS) regulated the issue of private flats on which the socialist tenancy right had been established, as well as the issue of public flats that holders of the socialist tenancy right were not authorized to buy because of the legal barriers imposed by the Act on the Sale. The provisions of Art. 30 and 31 ZNS proscribed that socialist tenancy right had ceased to exist in Croatian legal system, while its holders became protected tenants in private or public flats. Compensation for property confiscated during the Yugoslav Communist Rule Act (Official Gazette no. 92/96, 92/99, 80/02 and 81/02, entered into force on 1 January 1997 ; Hereinafter: the Act on Denationalization) solved the problem of the seized flats (nationalized and confiscated flats). For nationalized flat upon which the socialist tenancy right was established, it is prescribed that the previous owner is entitled to get the denationalization fee, while the holder of the socialist tenancy right on the flat is entitled to buy the flat at preferential prices and to register his ownership in the land register in order to acquire ownership of the flat. For nationalized flat upon which socialist tanancy right was not established, it provides returning of the ownership and possession to a previous owner. For confiscated flats upon which socialist tenancy right was established, it provides returning of the ownership, but not of possession, to a previous owner, while the holder of the socialist tenancy right on the flat becomes a protected tenant. The latest regulation issued in this area is the Law on the sale of flats intended for the concierges Act (Official Gazette no. 22/06, entered into force on 3 March 2006), providing that people who have used a flat in the building in a position of concierges or who have used the flat built by conversion of common space in the building are entitled, within preclusive deadline proscribed, to make a choice between buying that flat at preferential price or becoming the protected tenant in the flat. Two conclusions are reached in the first part of the paper. The first conclusion is that former regime of the rights on the flat was based on the institute of the socialist tenancy right, while the new regime is based on the rental contract and ownership, in which former socialist tanacy right on the flat had been converted. Another conclusion is that the new regime of the rights on the flat is not coherent, because of the many existing legal gaps, to which controversies in case law are consequent. In the second, and the main part of the paper Protected Flat Rrenting Contract this institute is fully analyzed. Analysis includes legal definition of the Contract, its legal nature and specific characteristics (lack of party autonomy and consensualism), the owner, the protected tenat, and protected tenat`s members of the family household that entered into a Contract – all of them as the subjects of the Contract, referring also to their rights and duties, a specific process of the conclusion of the Contract, contractual terms with an emphasis on the flat and protected rent as essential terms, written form of the Contract, with an emphasis on the possibility of concluding the Contract in the form of a judicial decision based on the claim of a protected tenant against an owner who refuses to sign the Contract, the reasons and ways for terminating the Contract, as well as legal remedies prescribed in order to protect the rights and duties of contractual parties. A special attention in the second part of the paper is paid to an elaboration of the main issues that arose in jurisprudence related to the Conract cases. The first such issue is whether the former holder of the socialist tenancy right is obliged to conclude the Contract with the owner of the flat. Analyzed decisions indicates that courts took the view he is. For the former holder of the socialist tenancy right, except this contract, there is no another legal besis upon which he can stay in the flat any more. So, if the Contract is not signed, the owner may bring the eviction lawsuit against former holder of the socialist tenancy right with . Exceptionally, when there is a justifiable reason on the side of the former holder of the socialist tenancy right preventing him from conclusion of the contract, he is obliged to enter into the Contract as soon as the reason cease. The second issue is the question of the legal nature of the deadlines prescribed in the provision of Art. 33 ZNS, which stipulates that the holder of the socialist tenancy right shall, within six months from the entry into force of ZNS, send to the the owner a written offer of the contract and that the holder of the socialist tenancy, in case the owner did not sign the Contract within 3 months from the date he had received the offer, he has right to bring a claim against the owner asking the court to reach the verdict which replaces the Contract. A key problem in the jurisprudence was the question whether these deadlines prescribed in cited provision were preclusive or not. If the answer is positive, the former holder of tenancy right in the moment of expiration of these deadlines loses a legal possibility of concluding the Contract. Thus, he has no any legal basis for using the flat any more and exposes himself to the risk of being sued by the owner for the eviction. From an analysis of court decisions, conclusions of the judicial department meetings on this issue, as well as relevant legal literature, it follows the conclusion these deadlines were mostly treated as non-preclusive, but barely instructive. This means that due to the expiration of these deadlines the former holder of the socialist tenancy right will not lose his right to conclude the Contract with the owner. But, at the same time, this does not mean that there is no time limit for the former holder of the socialist tenancy right to conclude the Contract. However, the former holder`s legal basis of using the flat is wasted at the moment from which may be considered he unreasonably refuses to sign the Contract. This moment has to be determined by the court, as substantive issue relevant in cases where the owner brings the eviction lawsuit against the former holder of socialist tenancy right. The third is the problem of judicial interpretation of the provision of Art. 31 ZNS, which provides that the right of protected rent does not have the former holder of socialist tenancy right who owns habitable house or flat. In connection with this two issues in judicial practice arose. The first question is whether a vacation house can be considered as habitable house in the terms of the cited provision. Supreme Court, in its decision No. Rev 40/99 of 10 June 1999., took the view that the vacation house was not considered as habitable house in the sense of Art. 31 ZNS, because it is a house with special purpose. It is not intended for housing or renting during the year around, but only in a short time period during vacations. Therefore, ownership of the vacation house is not a legal barrier on the side of the former holder of the socialist tenancy right for contracting protected rent. The conclusion is that this concept, based on rerum natura argument, is logical and, from the analyzed decision, follows it is accepted by the lower courts without exceptions. Another question is whether the right of protected rent is excluded in the case of the spouse of the former holders of socialist tenancy rights owning habitable house or flat. From the analyzed decision follows that in some cases, this factor was evaluated as a legal barrier, while in other not. In the paper the wiev that it is a legal barrier for contracting protected rent is taken, which is based on the teleological interpretation and is in accordance with ratio of this institute. Thus, the presented wiev prevents the abuse of the institute of protected tenancy by the former holders of socialist tenancy right that already have habitable house or flat for living. The fourth problem arose when the Constitutional Court had suspended the provision of Art. 40th Paragraph 2 ZNS by the Constitutional Court (Decision No. UI-762/96 to 188/98, Official Gazette no. 48/98 and 69/98, entered into force on 6 October 1998), which had been prescribing that the owner was obliged to provide another habitable flat to the protected tenant when terminating protected tenant contract because he (owner) had wanted to move into an apartment or to move in his descendants there. As the Croatian Parliament did not fill this legal gap, the question arose whether the courts were entitled to fill this gap by analogy . In the analyzed cases, courts did not dare to fill this legal gap, staying at the position that, taking into an account that cited provision is suspended, no other verdict in the case is possible but the eviction of a protected tenant without committing the owner to provide him another appropriate flat. But, great number of protected tenants bring constitutional claims against these eviction rulings. In the context of this, the Constitutional Court (in decision No. U-III-135/03 of 20th April 2003.) took the position of delaying the enforcement of a final verdict on the eviction till the moment the Constitutional court reaches different decision upon this question. In the third part of the paper Analysis of the case from the jurisprudence of the Split County Court it is analyzed the case no. P II 403/98, focusing on the facts and legal reasoning of the court, as followes. The claimant brought claim against the defendant in Municipal Court in Split on 18 March 1998, requiring the Court renders a verdict that will replace the Protected Flat Renting Contract. In the claim it is listed the claimant was the holder of the socialist tenancy right on the flat and is required for claimant's son and granddaughter to be enrolled in the Contract as protected tenant's members of the family household. The claimant died on 11 February 2001, and its place in the litigation took the son as sole heir. On 2 May 2001 the defendant brought the countercharge for eviction against the claimant. Factually and legally it was not controversial the claimant was the holder of the socialist tenancy right on the flat, while the defendant was the owner. Factually is controversial whether the claimant's son and granddaughter, through all the time from entry into force of ZNS onwards, lived in an apartment as concerned members of claimant`s family household. In other words, it was legally controversial whether the claimant's son and granddaughter, in the sense of the Art. 37 ZNS, were members of claimant`s family household and do they, after claimant`s death, acquire the position of protected tenants, in the sense of Art. 38 ZNS. The court in the evidential proceedings determined that the claimant`s son and granddaughter moved out from the underlying flat in 1992 and they re-moved in the same flat after the claimant died. Hence, the court concluded that in the moment of entry into force of ZNS they were not members of the family household of the claimant in the sense of Art. 37 ZNS. Therefore, the rights and duties of a protected tenant stipulated by the provision of Art. 38th ZNS do not exceed to them. Hence, the claim to adjudication which replaces a protected tanancy contract was rejected, while countercharge for eviction was accepted. Finally, Split County Court (Gz Decision No. 1989/03 of 17th September 2004.) dismissed prosecutors appeal as unfounded and confirmed the first instance decision.

POVEZANOST RADA