The Constitutional Court finds that depriving the appellant of a part of pecuniary claim for damage compensation arising from the car liability insurance for the amount of the interests on the pecuniary damage compensation until the termination of the immediate war danger, meets the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision No. U 44/02 of 23 July 2003, paragraph 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/03; damage compensation based on the automobile liability insurance for damage inflicted upon the third persons; 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 Constitutional Court concludes that the Supreme Court, by misapplying res iudicata principle in its ruling no. Rev-165/99 of 6 April 2000, deprived the appellant of the possibility of having a decision on the merits of his claim. This deprived the appellant of the essence of his interests protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision No. U 2/01 of 24 October 2003, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/04

Depriving the appellant of the possibility to enjoy her property through the adoption of the challenged judgments is not provided for by the law in the manner it resulted in the challenged judgments, given the violation of Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Law on Ownership and Legal Relations.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 160/03 of 28 April 2004, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/04; civil proceedings to repossess business premises which the contractor sold meanwhile to third persons and for which the appellant paid the purchase price
In the present case, the deprivation of property without compensation does not strike a fair balance between the means used and aim sought to be achieved so that the interference with the appellant’s property rights was disproportionate, which amounted to the violation of his right to property.
•    Decision No. U 11/03 of 28 May 2004, paragraph 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04

The appellant was deprived of his property where the ordinary courts, through arbitrary application of the substantive law, dismissed the appellant’s claim for compensation for damage due to an accident he sustained at work.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 36/03 of 15 June 2004, paragraph 35, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/04; civil proceedings for compensation for damage related to an accident at work

The imposition of fines can be defined as “deprivation” of property within the meaning of the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and thus must meet the requirements provided for in the aforementioned Article.
•    Decision No. U 65/03 of 22 September 2004, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 60/04; minor offence proceedings over the perpetration of a customs offence;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 498/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; payment of the fine imposed in the offence proceedings; 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

There is no deprivation of property in the present proceedings where the appellant requested the repossession of the real property, since the appellant’s right to property was not being decided at all in those proceedings.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 267/03 of 30 November 2004, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15/05; civil proceedings for the handover of the possession of a real property, which were suspended pending the resolution of the preliminary issue

There is a deprivation of possessions in the event where the challenged judgments of the ordinary courts deprive the appellant of his right to collect the debt in the requested amount.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 538/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/06; civil proceedings for the collection the debt arising from the “war tax”, and the lack of standing to be sued with regards to the Brcko District, since the obligation had arisen prior its proclamation, while the District did not conclude an agreement with the Entities assuming these obligations; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The long-term impossibility for the owners of the confiscated property to exercise their right to property, i.e. to collect pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage compensation awarded to them, although they have legally binding court judgments, agreements on compensation concluded with the competent administrative bodies, contracts and other legal acts issued on the basis of the provisions of the relevant laws, including the related default interests, on the one hand, and the postponement of the definition of “new rights” on the other hand, constitutes de facto deprivation of property.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 382, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/06; the failure to enforce legally binding court decisions whereby the appellants were awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage compensation for “war-related damage”; the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)
(k) of the Constitution of Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina established

Lawfully established lack of possibility to collect default interests, which were awarded by a legally binding decision, on the amounts of the established pecuniary and non- pecuniary damage, in any manner and at any time, raises the issue of “deprivation” of (the applicants’) of the right to property.
•    Decision on the Merits, No. AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 385, published in the  Official  Gazette  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  39/06;  failure to enforce legally binding court decisions whereby the appellants were awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage compensation for “war-related damage”; the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)
(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina established

Therefore, the fact that it was not possible to revalidate the concluded contract on the use of the apartment was in accordance with the relevant law and the subsequent order by which the appellant requested to vacate the apartment in question did not amount to the appellant’s deprivation of existing property.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1812/05 of 8 July 2006, paragraph 40, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06; the apartments occupied on the basis of the occupancy right

In the circumstances of the particular case, given the indisputable fact that the appellant was the occupancy right holder over the apartment in question on 30 April 1991 and that he filed a request for repossession thereof in a timely fashion, it follows that the administrative bodies and the Cantonal Court, by application of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Law on Cessation of Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, have reached an arbitrary conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the repossession of the relevant apartment for the reasons which could have been the basis for the cancelation of the contract on use of apartment pursuant to the Law on Housing Relations and on which it could have only be decided upon the action lodged by the holder of the allocation right before the competent court. Given that, in accordance with the Law on Cessation of Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, the decision by which the request for repossession of apartment was dismissed as ill-founded has as the consequence the loss of the occupancy right, which represents the possession in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, it follows that the challenged decisions in the appellant’s case result in the deprivation of property which does not comply with standards of the lawful interference.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2052/12 of 27 November 2015, paragraph 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 100/15; repossession of apartment; the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina established