5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Vinkovci. 6.  In 1992 the applicant and her former husband G.Z. built a family house in Vinkovci. The house measured 176.42 square metres on two levels, each consisting of two rooms, bathroom, hallway, dining-room and a kitchen. It was placed on a plot of land measuring in total 455 square metres. The applicant and her former husband lived on the ground floor while the upper level was left in a rough stage of construction. 7.  In May 2005 the applicant and G.Z. divorced, but continued to live in the same house. 8.  In the meantime, the applicant lodged a civil action in the Županja Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Županji) asking it to establish her share in the house and the plot of land. She also asked that her share in the ownership of a jointly owned car be established. 9.  During the proceedings, the Županja Municipal Court commissioned an expert report to establish the total value of the house and the plot of land. The expert submitted her report on 17 March 2009, finding that the total value of the house and the plot of land was 55,158.48 euros (EUR). She also found that the parties’ proportions in the total investments were 66:34 in favour of G.Z. 10.  Since G.Z. did not contest the applicant’s claim, on 8 May 2009 the Županja Municipal Court established that the applicant was the owner of one-third and G.Z. of two-thirds of the house and the plot of land. It also established that they owned their car in equal shares and ordered G.Z. to pay the applicant 3,045.50 Croatian kunas (HRK) on that account. This judgment became final and the applicant and G.Z. registered their shares of the house and the plot of land in the land registry of the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima). 11.  On 28 August 2009 G.Z. lodged a request with the Vinkovci Municipal Court for partition of the house. He proposed to buy out the applicant’s share or, alternatively, to have the house partitioned by judicial sale. 12.  At a hearing on 6 October 2009 the applicant did not object to the proposal for partition in the proportions established, but she asked for an adjournment of the hearing so she could prepare her observations concerning the proposed partition model. 13.  On 14 October 2009 the applicant opposed the proposed partition model asking the Vinkovci Municipal Court to order partition in kind. She argued that she and G.Z. had already been living in separate parts of the house for some years and that it had amounted to a de facto partition. She further submitted that she had brought a civil action against G.Z. in the Vinkovci Municipal Court in which she had claimed a refund of her previous contributions to the construction of the house. These proceedings were at the time still pending. 14.  On 2 November 2009 G.Z. submitted his reply to the applicant’s observations. He argued that he and the applicant had actually been living in the same space and sharing the same living area, apart from bedrooms. He considered that partition in kind was not technically possible, given their shares in the house and the plot of land. As regards the applicant’s civil action for refund of contributions, he pointed out that they had already had their shares established by a final judgment, and that her civil action had no bearing on the proceedings at issue. 15.  Another hearing before the Vinkovci Municipal Court was scheduled for 23 November 2009 at 9 a.m. 16.  On the day of the hearing, the applicant’s representative informed the Vinkovci Municipal Court that she was not able to attend because she had some undisclosed health issues. She asked for the hearing to be adjourned. The Vinkovci Municipal Court dismissed the request for adjournment of the hearing, on the grounds that the applicant’s representative had not provided any evidence about her health, and that she had not asked for the adjournment in due time. The hearing was held and the Vinkovci Municipal Court decided to commission an expert report in order to establish whether partition in kind was possible and also the market value of the property at issue. 17.  On 26 November 2009 the Vinkovci Municipal Court commissioned an expert report from S.Ž. 18.  On 4 December 2009 the applicant complained to the Vinkovci Municipal Court that she had not been allowed to participate in the choice of the expert and that the decision to commission the report had been adopted in her absence. 19.  On 4 January 2010 S.Ž. submitted his expert report. He estimated the market value of the property at EUR 55,674. As regards the possibility of partition in kind, S.Ž. established that it was not possible because the house was a single unit. He found that the house had one entrance, which led to a hallway from where it was possible to access all the other rooms in the house. He also found that the house had a building permit only for the ground floor although in reality it consisted of two levels, and that the house did not have a use permit. 20.  At a hearing held on 17 February 2010 the applicant objected to the findings of the expert report. She maintained that partition in kind was possible, and pointed out that the expert had not examined the possibility of creating two separate flats, and that his findings as to the value of the property and the existence of the use permit were unclear. 21.  The Vinkovci Municipal Court adjourned the hearing and summoned the expert for questioning concerning the applicant’s objections. 22.  At a hearing held on 8 March 2010 the Vinkovci Municipal Court, in presence of the parties and their representatives, heard expert S.Ž., who reiterated his previous findings. He explained that creating two separate flats would only have been possible if there had been two single units with separate entrances. Since this was not the case with the house at issue it was not possible to establish two separate flats without further significant investment. In particular, it would be necessary to obtain a new building permit, which meant instituting a new set of administrative proceedings, and to carry out the necessary construction work. The expert further explained that he had never seen a use permit and therefore he had made his report as though it did not exist. In any event, the existence of a use permit would not significantly influence his findings, because it could always be obtained without any particular difficulties. As regards the market value of the property at issue, he explained that it had been assessed in line with the relevant market data. 23.  The parties had no questions for the expert. The applicant objected to the part of the report which stated that partition in kind was not possible. She asked for a new report to be commissioned from another expert. 24.  On 22 April 2010 the Vinkovci Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s request, on the grounds that all the relevant facts had been established, and concluded the proceedings. 25.  On the same day the Vinkovci Municipal Court, relying on the expert report, ordered the sale of the house and the plot of land. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“This court did not accept the respondent’s request for the proceedings to be stayed until termination of the proceedings under no. P-1151/09. The court considers that the outcome of those civil proceedings is not a preliminary issue which could influence these partition proceedings, especially since the respondent did not object to the partition itself and the established shares, which is the decisive prerequisite for partition ...
The court did not accept the respondent’s objection that the expert had been appointed without having her opinion heard, as provided under Article 251 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
At a hearing held on 23 November 2009 the court decided to commission an expert report. The respondent’s representative was duly summoned to this hearing, but she informed the court, on the same day just before the hearing ..., that she could not attend for health reasons, without submitting any evidence of health problems.
The claimant objected to the adjournment, and the hearing was held in the absence of the respondent and her representative ...
In any event, although it is true that the parties are allowed to express their opinion as to the choice of the expert, it is for the court to choose an expert, irrespective of whether the parties agree ...
The respondent asked for a new report to be commissioned from another expert.
Answering the respondent’s objections at a hearing held on 8 March 2010, expert [S.Ž.] reiterated his findings both as to the market value of the property and the possibility of partition in kind.
According to the expert, in order to form a single unit such as an apartment, there would have to be a cohesive group of rooms suitable as living accommodation, which would form a unit and would have a separate entrance. A single unit, according to the expert, could not be formed from one or more rooms which do not meet the aforementioned criteria.
The parties’ house does not meet the criteria by which single units could be formed, since it would imply significant costs, particularly for the new building permit, the relevant administrative proceedings and eventually the construction work.
The expert also explained that he had determined the market value taking into account the fact that the house had no use permit, although obtaining one would not entail significant costs.
Even after the expert had reiterated his findings at the hearing, the respondent insisted on her objection to his finding that partition in kind would not be possible, and requested that a new expert report be commissioned.
This court did not accept the respondent’s request for a new expert report because it found S.Ž.’s report objective and well drafted.
Namely, throughout the proceedings the respondent maintained that partition in kind was possible, as she and the claimant had been sharing the same space as physically divided parts.
However, this court considers that the fact that the parties live separately in the same house does not mean in itself that partition in kind is possible, since it would require each party to be allocated a single unit which could be entered in the land register and which would be in proportion with their respective shares.
The expert explicitly stated that partition in kind would not be possible since it would require additional construction work, special permits and more.
Given that the central question in proceedings relating to partition of property is to establish whether at the relevant time the property at issue could be physically partitioned, it follows that the respondent’s objections are ill-founded, and consequently the expert’s report was accepted.” 26.  On 17 May 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal before the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) challenging the first-instance decision. She maintained that the fact that she and G.Z. both lived in the house amounted to de facto partition and that, in any event, it had been necessary to stay the partition proceedings pending the outcome of the civil proceedings in which she had claimed reimbursement of her previous contributions in the construction of the house. She further challenged the fact that the expert had been chosen without her having the opportunity to make any observations in that respect. Furthermore, the applicant considered that it was possible to form two single units and thus a building with two separate flats. Since the expert had found differently it was necessary to commission another report; the first-instance court had refused to do this without giving any relevant reasons. 27.  On 17 February 2011 the Vukovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. It found the expert report well drafted and convincing and therefore dismissed all the applicant’s arguments in that respect. The Vukovar County Court found that the fact that the applicant had not been heard when the first-instance court had decided to commission the report had had no bearing on the overall fairness of the proceedings. It also pointed out that the expert had been heard during the proceedings and that he had convincingly defended his findings. Finally, the Vukovar County Court endorsed the findings of the first-instance court that partition in kind was not possible, and held that the pending civil proceedings for refund of the applicant’s contributions to the construction of the house had not warranted staying the proceedings, since the parties’ shares in the house had already been established by a final judgment. 28.  On 22 March 2011 the Vinkovci Municipal Court opened enforcement proceedings for judicial sale of the house and the plot of land. 29.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision before the Vukovar County Court on 4 April 2011. 30.  On 7 April 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing that there had been a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 29 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. She also considered that there had been a violation of the principle of lawfulness, equality before the law, right to respect for private and family life and the right of ownership, under Articles 5, 14, 35 and 48 of the Constitution respectively. The applicant reiterated her previous arguments concerning the choice of the expert and the findings of the expert report. She maintained that she and G.Z. had both been living in the house for years and that they had already created de facto partition. Thus she considered that partition in kind was the only possible solution. The applicant also asked the Constitutional Court to stay the enforcement proceedings. 31.  On 12 May 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded and dismissed her request for staying of the enforcement proceedings. 32.  On 10 October 2011 the Vukovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Vinkovci Municipal Court instituting the enforcement proceedings (see paragraphs 28 and 29 above). 33. On 18 September 2012 the Vinkovci Municipal Court, the house and the plot of land had been sold to G.Z., by court order, awarded the applicant HRK 135,333.34 as her share. 34.  On the same day the Vinkovci Municipal Court ordered the applicant to vacate the house.