The Constitutional Court notes that it follows from the reasoning of the challenged judgement of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court in fact evaluated that the defendant’s right to “home” in terms of Article 8 of the European Convention which the defendant (82 years of age at the time) excercised while living in the apartment in question longer than thirty years in the particular case, is more important than the appellants’ right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention as they had not used the apartment to live in it, i.e., that they are persons who have already possessed their own home. Consequently, the Constitutional Court holds that in the present case the challenged decision has been issued in accordance with the public interest and that is the protection of rights and freedoms of others, in particular case of the defendant’s right to “home” and that a fair balance has been stuck between the protection of the appellants’ rights to property and a general interest in the particular case as, in the current situation, the excessive burden was not placed on the appellants to reach a legitimate aim, especially given the fact that the particular case concerned the defendant’s right which could not have been transferred to a third party and the defendant as a person of older age who had lived in the apartment in question over thirty years and who died even before the challenged judgement could have been enforced. In view of all stated above, the Constitutional Court concludes that in the present case there is no violation of the appellants’ right to property in the present case under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1371/12 of 10 November 2015, paragraph 32; handing over the apartment into possession; common-law marriage; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH

In the circumstances of the particular case, the amount of the costs of proceedings as determined by the Decision on the Costs of the Proceedings places an excessive burden on the appellants which disturbs the balance between the public interest sought to be achieved through the establishment of rules on the compensation of damages and the appellants’ rights.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 579/12 of 27 November 2015, paragraph 121, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2/16; compensation of non-pecuniary damages; costs of proceedings; the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court points out to the indisputable facts from which arises that the appellant had used the respective apartment in the role of the occupancy right holder as of 1975 until the outbreak of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of a ruling of the National Defence Federal Secretariat, that after the end of war he requested and repossessed the apartment as its occupancy right holder through the Municipality which issued a ruling no. 04/23-1 J 43/2 of 5 April 200, and that on 14 June 2000 he was reinstated into possession of the apartment by the Municipality body. Given the aforesaid, the appellant excercised all rights relating to the repossession of apartment (confirmation that he is the occupancy right holder and that he has the right to repossession and reinstatement into possession of the respective apartment) through the Municipality. As to the crucial question concerning the timeliness of submission of the request for purchase of the apartment and in that connection the relevant competencies and procedures of deciding on the request, the Constitutional Court, first of all, indicates as indisputable the fact for the ordinary courts of all three instances which relates to the time limit in which the appellant could have lodged his request for purchase of apartment, and that is 24 July 2002 (a year upon entry into force of the Law on Purchase of Apartments), which was most favourable for the appellant in the relevant period, after all modifications of Article 8a of the Law on Purchase of Apartments, as concluded by all three courts. It is also indisputable that the appellant lodged two requests for purchase of apartment, the first with the Municipality, on 14 March 2002, and the second with the respondent, on 28 December 2005. In this connection, the Constitutional Court points out that the provisions of the Law on Purchase of Apartments according to which the expression of occupancy right holder’s intention to purchase an apartment is relevant. Thereafter, the procedure of purchase and sale is initiated. True, there is a mandatory time limit for the expression of this intention. In the present case, it is beyond dispute that the appellant expressed his intention to purchase the apartment in a timely fashion but his intention, within this mandatory period, was directed towards an authority that had no competence. In this respect, one cannot neglect both the relevant provisions of the Law on Administrative Proceedings and the fact that the Municipality, as an authority’s body which should secure all realistic forms of protection of the citizens’ rights and interests, upon receipt of the appellant’s request for which it was not competent, did not act within the scope of its legal obligation under Article 65(3) and (4) of the Law on Administrative Proceedings. Namely, in the case of receipt of a request for which it is not competent, the obligation of the municipal body to declare itself not competent, clearly and indisputably follows from this legal provision as well as an obligation to inform a party to forward the request to the competent body. Given that the Municipality, in the particular case, failed to act in any of the above referenced ways, the Constitutional Court holds that an inappropriate (excessive) burden was placed on the appellant in excercising a legitimate aim i.e., that a fair balance between the protection of the appellant’s right to property and the public interest requirements has not been stuck. Therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged judgements have violated the appellant’s right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2376/12 of 8 December 2015, paragraph 42, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6/16; timely request for purchase of apartment; established violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, as a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s property occurred when the appellant’s right to pension was revoked and he was obliged to return the amounts paid on the basis of pension, which placed an excessive burden on the appellant that disrupted a fair balance between the public interest and the appellant’s interest.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4218/12 of 6 April 2016, paragraph 42, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 36/16; violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court deems that the legislator, by setting under Article 97 of the Law on Misdemeanors the time limit of six months from the entry into effect of the misdemeanor ruling for a person to file a request for the renewal of a misdemeanor procedure for the reasons mentioned above as provided for in Article 96 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the same law, indirectly set the time limit within which ordinary courts, and the Constitutional Court thereafter (including the European Court) are obliged to pass their respective decisions that may have effect on a different resolution of the misdemeanor procedure. Evidently, no one took account of the realistic state of the judiciary and the situation in which ordinary courts are overloaded with cases, which is the reason why it is unrealistic that the legislator expects for court (or administrative) procedures to be finalized within such an extremely short time limits. In view of the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court deems that such legal solution did not strike a fair balance between public interests, that are protected by relevant laws (in this case the Law on Misdemeanors) and the interests of individuals related to the protection of their rights guaranteed by appropriate instruments for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 879/14 of 22 December 2016, paragraph 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 10/17; quality of a law; violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged decisions are not in violation of the right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, as in the case at hand the interference with the appellant’s right to property was in compliance with the law, it pursued the legitimate aim and reasonable relation of “proportionality” between the means used and aim sought to be achieved.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 668/15 of 22 March 2018, paragraph 53, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/18; administrative dispute; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH

The interference with the appellant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, although based on the law and serving the legitimate goal, places an excessive burden on the appellant that may not be justified by her failure to get registered prior to instituting an enforcement procedure against the enforcement debtor who had been registered as the owner at the time of the institution of the enforcement procedureas the owner of the respective apartment given the fact that, prior to instituting an enforcement procedure, upon entering into a contract with the enforcement debtor whom she had paid the purchase price in full, she acquired the right to possession on the respective apartment as well as the right to get registered as the owner thereof, which rights did not cease on entering the ruling on enforcement into books, neither was the registration of the ruling on enforcement, as established by the legally binding judgment, an obstacle for the appellant to acquire the right of ownership, on the basis of the valid contract entered into with the enforcement debtor, on the respective apartment and the right to register her ownership thereof.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2326/18 of 17 July 2018, paragraph 85, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 55/18; enforcement proceeding; ownership not registered in books; violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH

[Also see the Case No. AP 2684/18 of 6 December 2018 wherein the Constitutional Court, in the circumstances of the present case, was unable to draw a conclusion that the interference with the appellant’s right to property placed an excessive burden that may be justified by the appellant’s failure to get registered, prior to instituting an enforcement procedure, as the owner of the respective real properties, given a complete passiveness of the appellant in undertaking any procedural actions with a view to registering their right on the respective real property, which would render impossible the implementation of the enforcement on the said real property]
The Constitutional Court finds that there is no violation of the right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention where the impugned decisions initiating the procedure of compulsory collection of unpaid tax liabilities of the company in question from the property of the appellant as the director of that company, within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Law on Tax Administration, interfered with the appellant’s right to property in a lawful manner and in accordance with the principle of proportionality, that is, striking a balance between the appellant’s interest and the public interest, i.e. the legitimate aim of the proper functioning of the tax collection system, since the choice of methods by which the legality and regularity of the payment of taxes is controlled falls within the States’ margin of appreciation, and the appellant failed to file an appeal against the ruling which formed the basis for initiating the procedure of compulsory collection in question.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 5187/17 of 30 October 2019, paragraph 47, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76/19; the procedure of compulsory collection of unpaid tax liabilities, no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH established