There is no deprivation in a situation where the ordinary courts took decisions ordering the appellant as the defendant to refrain from trespassing on the plaintiff’s part of the road but the control of property use within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention. As the control of property use is provided for by the law, and it is not contrary to the public interest and it is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved, there is no violation of the right to property.
• Decision No. U 74/03 of 24 October 2003, paragraphs 35 and 42, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 3/04
The issue of claims barred by the statute of limitations was considered in relation to the principle of the control of property use of Article 1(2) of Protocol No. 1 where the Constitutional Court referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 13674/88 of 14 April 1989, Cyril Albert Warner v. the United Kingdom), according to which, the possibility of filing complaints relating to the statute of limitations fall within the limitation put on the exercise of civil rights. It is concluded that there is no violation of this right, given that the courts correctly calculated the statute of limitations period.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1/03 of 15 June 2004, paragraphs 23 to 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/04; collection of utility services
The changes relating to the status haven not been accompanied by the adequate legal procedures provided for by the applicable law regulating that matter so that the defendant cannot be exempted from the obligation of paying the appellant the amount relating to the insurance. Such law must be in compliance with the standards of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and no one can be exempted from the obligation solely because the factual changes were not legally regulated, which was obligatory, inter alia, for the reasons of security of interested third persons.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1115/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraphs 32 and 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 25/06
The Constitutional Court concludes that in the instant case there is no violation of the appellant’s right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina 10 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention in case where the amount of money deposited for bail as a substitute for custody that had been previously determined was credited to the budget of the Canton since the appellant, after the bail amount had been deposited, was beyond the reach of the prosecuting authorities.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2667/07 of 25 September 2009, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/09
