5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Kutina. 6.  On 12 February 1989 he concluded a sale contract with Ms M.A., Mr J.A. and Mr Z.A. whereby they sold him a house in Kutina for 47,000 German marks (DEM). Because the applicant actually paid only DEM 30,000 they brought a civil action against him in the Kutina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kutini) seeking payment of the remaining DEM 17,000. 7.  By a judgment of the Kutina Municipal Court of 20 May 1994, which became final on 30 November 1994, the applicant was ordered to pay to the sellers (hereinafter “the creditors”) the equivalent of DEM 17,000 in domestic currency, together with accrued statutory default interest (running from 15 December 1989) and the costs of the proceedings. 8.  On 12 March 2003 the creditors applied to the same court (hereinafter “the enforcement court”) for enforcement of that judgment. Specifically, they sought (a) the equivalent of 8,691.96 euros (EUR) in Croatian kunas (HRK), together with accrued statutory default interest running from 15 December 1989, (b) the costs of the above civil proceedings in the amount of HRK 1,860, together with accrued statutory default interest (running from 20 May 1994), and (c) the costs of the enforcement proceedings. 9.  On 18 March 2003 the enforcement court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) in respect of the seizure and sale of the applicant’s immovable property, in particular his house, with a view to settling the creditors’ claim. 10.  During the enforcement proceedings a court-appointed expert assessed the value of the applicant’s house at HRK 384,197[1]. 11.  After two unsuccessful attempts on 16 February and 23 March 2005 to sell it through public auction, the enforcement court on 13 April 2005 at a third public auction sold the house and awarded it to the enforcement creditors for HRK 100,000. In so doing it relied on section 97(4) of the 1996 Enforcement Act, as amended in 1999, (hereinafter “the 1999 Amendments”) under which at a third public auction a debtor’s immovable property could be sold without restrictions regarding the lowest price (see paragraphs 25-26 below). 12.  Since the creditors did not pay the purchase price within the set time-limit, on 28 November 2006 the court set aside its decision of 13 April 2005 and re-ran the third public auction. 13.  At a third public auction, held on 10 December 2008, the enforcement court sold the applicant’s house and awarded it to a certain Mr D.D. for HRK 50,000[2]. The court again based its decision on section 97(4) of the 1996 Enforcement Act, as amended by the 1999 Amendments (see paragraph 11 above and paragraphs 25-26 below). 14.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 1 April 2009 the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) quashed the decision of 10 December 2008 to award the applicant’s house to Mr D.D. and remitted the case. It held that the enforcement court had misinterpreted section 97(4) and that the contested decision was in breach of section 6 of the Enforcement Act because that court had not sufficiently respected the applicant’s dignity and the requirement that the enforcement be the least onerous for the debtor (see paragraph 30 below). It noted that the purchase price was not sufficient to cover even half of the debt, which on 13 April 2005 had amounted to HRK 107,974.40[3], meaning that the sale of the applicant’s house had not achieved the main purpose of the enforcement proceedings – namely, the settlement of the creditors’ claim. The relevant part of that decision reads:
“The enforcement debtor ... justly complains about the sale of the property [in question] ... for an amount significantly lower than its established value.
...
By having sold for HRK 50,000 a property [worth] HRK 384,197, the first-instance court evidently misinterpreted ... [section 97(4) of the Enforcement Act].
That is so because the rule contained in section 97(4) is not of a mandatory nature [ius cogens], as it merely allows that property ... to be sold at a third public auction without restrictions regarding the lowest price ... (the text of that provision literally reads ‘ ... may be sold ...’ ).
... the enforcement court has to interpret the said provision in the light of the basic principles of [enforcement] procedure, as well as in accordance with the purpose sought to be achieved by the proceedings.
By selling for HRK 50,000 property [worth] HRK 384,197 and awarding it to the buyer, the first-instance court breached section 6 of the Enforcement Act, which imposes the duty on an enforcement court, in carrying out an enforcement, to respect the debtor’s dignity and make [the enforcement] the least onerous for him or her.
Furthermore, the purpose of enforcement proceedings is to settle the claim of an enforcement creditor. Having regard to the fact that the creditors’ claim in these proceedings on 13 April 2005 ... amounted to HRK 107,974.40 and that now, on account of the lapse of time and accrued [default] interest, it is [even] higher ..., given that the established value of the property is three times higher than the debt, and since the price offered at the last public auction would not settle even half of the debt, it is reasonable to conclude that accepting the said offer was in breach of section 6 of the Enforcement Act and that it cannot be held that the sale in question was carried out with a view to achieving the purpose of enforcement proceedings – namely, settling the creditor’s claim.” 15.  In the resumed proceedings the enforcement court again scheduled a third public auction, which was held on 12 May 2009 and at which the applicant’s house was again sold to D.D. but this time for HRK 70,000[4]. 16.  Accordingly, by a decision of 3 June 2009 the court awarded the applicant’s house to D.D. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that his house had been sold for less than one-fifth of its value, which had not been sufficient to settle the creditors’ claim in full. In so doing he referred to the reasons given by the Sisak County Court in its decision of 1 April 2009 (see paragraph 14 above). 17.  On 2 October 2009 the enforcement creditors informed the enforcement court that they considered that their claim had been settled in full. 18.  By a decision of 20 December 2010 the Sisak County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 3 June 2009 to award the applicant’s house to D.D. (see paragraph 16 above). The relevant part of the County Court’s decision, which was served on the applicant’s representative on 12 January 2011, reads:
“It is not disputed that on 3 June 2009 a third public auction was held, at which the debtor’s property was sold for HRK 70,000. The third public auction was carried out in accordance with section 97(4) of the Enforcement Act, which provides that if a property is not sold at a second auction, the court shall, within 15 to 30 days [of the second auction], schedule a third auction at which the property may be sold without restrictions regarding the lowest price [calculated in proportion to its] established value.” 19.  On 11 February 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging violations of his right to equality before the law and his right of ownership, as guaranteed by Article 14 paragraph 2 and Article 48 of the Croatian Constitution (see paragraph 22 below). In so doing he repeated, in substance, the arguments raised in his appeal. 20.  On 19 May 2011 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decision was not open to constitutional review. That decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 6 June 2011. 21.  Meanwhile, by a decision of 14 February 2011 the enforcement court distributed the proceeds of the sale to the enforcement creditors, and by a decision of 18 May 2011 ordered the applicant’s eviction from the house. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed by the Sisak County Court.