In a written request, Judge Đuro Sessa handwrote that the case needs to be resolved urgently due to possible fraud or dispute, instead of halting the registration until an investigation is conducted.
I was astonished to learn that in Croatia, ownership registration based on fraud is formally legalized. According to the Law on Ownership and Other Real Rights, and the Law on Land Registers, simplified, two conditions are prescribed for acquiring ownership. These are a legal transaction (sale, inheritance, exchange, donation, etc.) and registration in the ownership books in the order of priority of registration. And when fraud occurs where someone sells the same property, for example, to three buyers, all are exhausted in determining which of the defrauded buyers registered first, completely disregarding the fact that this is a registration based on fraud. Why is it that only in the case of ownership registration does the rule not apply that a contract concluded under fraud is void?
Three Defrauded Buyers In this specific case, Vladimir Debeljački sold the same apartment on Berislavićeva Street in the center of Zagreb to composer Ivica Krajač, historian Zvjezdana Sikirić-Assouline, and lawyer Jerina Malešević. In the race to the land registry, Zvjezdana Sikirić-Assouline was the first to reach the goal. Ivica Krajač managed to ‘charm’ the fraudster and get his money back. Jerina Malešević lost everything, so she is suing the Republic of Croatia, proving what the state failed to ensure for the regularity of the race for ownership registration based on the order of priority. Vladimir Debeljački, who sold the same apartment to three buyers, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, but is still waiting to be sent to serve his sentence (in Croatia, one also waits for ‘prison services’ similar to, for example, healthcare).
Questionable Credibility
Owners are not sure they have not been ‘re-registered’ in the land registry
Registration of someone else’s property without the owner’s knowledge is not uncommon in Croatia. We read these days in the daily newspapers about the affair of Joško Svaguša, who registered himself on someone else’s properties in Rogoznica without the owner’s knowledge. He probably registered based on ‘invalid’ documents, but he was the first at the counter. Experts from the Geodetic Administration at their congress from the Antunović hotel, according to daily press reports, recommend these days that owners check every two years whether someone has registered as the owner without their knowledge.
From the minutes of the trial in the case of Jerina Malešević against Croatia, we see that Zvjezdana Sikirić-Assouline, realizing she was defrauded, sought the help of lawyer Đuro Maurman, who advised her that the most important thing was to submit the proposal for ownership registration on the disputed property before others. Although she is younger than the other two defrauded, Zvjezdana Sikirić-Assouline might not have been the first to submit the proposal for registration if it weren’t for the ‘doping’ of the urgent request from Đuro Sessa, then president of the Municipal Court in Zagreb. The question arises as to why in this case a land registry seal, which must be placed immediately when someone submits a proposal for land registry registration, was not sufficient, regardless of when the application would be resolved. Why was urgent resolution needed in a case where nothing indicated urgency?
Urgent Registration of Fraud Witness Nada Orečić, who as a clerk resolved the registration of Zvjezdana Sikirić-Assouline (Case Zs-9892/04), stated at the court hearing that this case was accepted for processing out of order. – The case was signed by President Đuro Sessa. It was customary that when an urgent case was received for processing, the case number or the reason for the urgent request would be noted on the request.
In this specific case in the case Zs-9892/04, there was a note on the request, but I do not know who composed the request or its content, but I remember that it was about ‘the possibility of fraud or dispute’. For requests submitted to the president of the court, the president handwrote the case number, the reason for the request, the date, and signature, and such a file would be sent to the clerk for processing. The same was true in the case Zs-9892/04, the witness said. This means that one of the three defrauded persons was registered as the owner, and no one, not even Judge Sessa, demanded that the registration be temporarily halted and an investigation into the ‘possible fraud’ be initiated.
We invite entrepreneurs to present their problems. Following your writings, by pointing out the absurdities in individual cases, we will highlight the shortcomings of the system as a whole and thus support the readers of Lider as individuals in their unequal disputes with the cumbersome state administration. Contact:
e-mail: [email protected]
tel. 01/6333-524
address: Ivica Grčar, Lider,
Savska 41, 10144 Zagreb
