The court decisions taken in the enforcement proceedings have not violated the appellant’s right to property under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the European Convention insofar as the financial loss, which could have been the subject of assessment in other proceedings is concerned.
• Decision No. U 30/01 of 11 May 2002, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/02; compensation for health care, denomination; 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 violation of the right to property when the appellant has not acquired the right to the apartment in question, nor did she have, at the time of death of the occupancy right holder, the status as a member of her family household, which could possibly represent a part of the right to use an apartment.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 499/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; the transfer of occupancy right to a child; 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 violation of the right to property, since the appellant did not refer to any of the principles contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, but he claimed that his right to property was violated as a result of incompletely and erroneously established facts of the case and of erroneous application of the substantive law.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1143/04 of 26 April 2005, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/05
There is no violation of the right to property where the ordinary courts have dismissed the appellant’s claim due to the lack of standing to be sued.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 538/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/06; civil proceedings of payment of the debt arising from the “war debt”, lack of standing to be sued with regards to the District of Brčko, since the obligation was incurred before its proclamation, while the District concluded no Agreement with the Entities on Assuming these obligations; there was 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 a violation of the right to property when, in the procedure for expropriation, the facts of the case indicate that legal requirements for expropriation have been met, with the exception of expropriated real properties, and the remaining real properties of the appellant, although the competent administrative authority dismissed his request.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 528/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraphs 27 to 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06; administrative procedure, request for full expropriation in the event when the expropriation of only a part of the property amounts to the impossibility of normal use of the remaining part of the property; there is a 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 violation of the right to property in the event when the ordinary courts dismiss the claim for the restoration to previous state of possession due to the changed legal circumstances, namely because of the appellant’s subsequent loss of the temporary right to use a construction land not-built-upon, due to taking over that land from his posession.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 851/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22/06; dispute relating to the disturbance of possession of a construction land not-built-upon, over which the appellant has temporary occupancy right; there is no violation of Article of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention comprises three distinct rules. The first rule, set out in the first paragraph, is of a general nature and enunciates the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property. The second rule contained in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possession and makes it subject to certain conditions. The third rule, stated in the second paragraph of this article, recognizes that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The three rules are not “distinct” in the sense of being unconnected: the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and ought to be construed within the scope of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see ECHR, the Sporrong and Lönnorth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, paragraph 61).
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1812/05 of 8 July 2006, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06; apartments with the occupancy rights;
• Decision No. AP 2144/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12/07
Moreover, the Constitutional Court invokes its own position presented with regards to the same factual and legal issues in the Decision of the Commission for Human Rights within the Constitutional Court in the Case no. CH/01/8379 of 7 April 2007, which consistently supports the case-law of the Human Rights Chamber and the European Commission for Human Rights, that the deprivation of ownership, or of some other property right, constitutes an instantaneous action and does not result in a continued interference with the applicants’ property rights (see, e.g. Application no. 7379/76, decision of 10 December 1976, Decisions and Reports 8, p. 211). Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concluded that in the mentioned decision of the Commission for Human Rights within the Constitutional Court, regarding the applicants’ complaints which are also related to the redistribution of land in Kotorsko, that upon the very adoption of decisions on redistribution of land in the period from 1962 to 1965 the said real properties were transferred to the state-owned property, and that there was no continued interference with the property rights of former owners of the respective real properties. The Constitutional Court considers that the referred position is applicable in this specific case as well, and it also concludes that upon the adoption of decisions on the redistribution of land the real property in question was transferred to the state-owned property.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 804/06 of 29 March 2008, paragraph 71, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 46/08; administrative proceedings, distribution of land; 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 holds that there is a continued 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 court’s decision prevents the appellant from exercising his rights arising from the contract of sale in the manner in which the Human Rights Chamber found it to be in violation of the aforementioned right, given the decision of the Human Rights Chamber, which is final and binding in accordance with Annex VI of the Agreement.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 441/08 of 17 April 2008, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 46/08; violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH established
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 the Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention in a case where the enforcement procedure is resumed against a new owner of the real property in his/her capacity as an enforcement debtor, who is not a bona fide owner and who, by the legally binding ruling, has been granted the transfer of ownership over the respective real property after the legally binding ruling allowed the enforcement against the former enforcement debtor who passed away during the enforcement procedure, in order to enforce the legally binding court judgment in which the amount of the obligation of the former enforcement debtor to the enforcement seeker was determined, since the interference with the property is prescribed by law and pursues a legitimate aim.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2235/08 of 26 March 2010, paragraph 51, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50/10; enforcement 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 has been a violation of 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, in a situation when the Cantonal Court and administrative bodies, by applying the Law on Sale of Apartments to the situation regulated exclusively by the Law on Housing Relations, unlawfully interfered with the appellant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property, thereby making it impossible for the appellant to realize his right under Article 56 of the Law on Housing Relations after meeting the prescribed conditions.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 619/08 of 25 September 2010, paragraph 44, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37/11; the privatization of socially-owned apartments; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH
The Constitutiona Court notes that it is apparent, in the circumstances of the present case and under the relevant provisions of the Law on Obligations and the provisions of the Law on the Privatization of State-Owned Capital, that there was no possibility to request in the event of the cancellation of the respective contract (i) the payment of the statutory default interest on the funds/assets not paid in money (old foreign currency savings vouchers). Therefore, the Constitutional Court concluded that the appellants’ request for the payment of the statutory default interests on the basis of the funds they paid and that were refunded to them in the old foreign currency savings vouchers did not constitute “legitimate expectation” based on law, thus 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 was not violated.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2881/09 of 25 September 2010, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 52/12; payment of debt, interests; 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 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 was violated as the interference with the appellant’s right was not in accordance with the law, i.e. as the Supreme Court, in deciding on the appellant’s property claim wherein the appellant requested delivery of possession and payment of the rent, arbitrarily applied substantive law and dismissed the appellant’s claim by giving the reasons that the second defendant’s right of possession of the business premises in question prevailed over the appellant’s right within the meaning of Article 41 of the Law on Property Relationships
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1772/09 of 13 November 2012, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 101/12; delivery of possession of business premises; a 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 established
There is a violation of the appellant’s right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, as excessively lengthy proceeding resulted in the deprivation of the appellant’s anticipated property, i.e. in the loss of the right he had at the time of filing the request and during the next four years and more.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3700/16 of 6 December 2018, paragraph 43; the exercise of the right to pension, loss of the right due to excessive duration of the proceeding, 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 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, given that the appellants do not have “property” within the meaning of this Article, as they could not have a “legitimate expectation” that they would exercise the right of exclusion in respect of the real property in question, since the conditions prescribed by the Bankruptcy Law and the Law on Property-Legal Relations were obviously not satisfied, that is, they could not prove that they were the owners of the real property in question and that they would for that reason have the right of exclusion in bankruptcy proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4631/17 of 30 October 2019, paragraph 41, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76/19, the dispute concerning the right of the appellants to file a petition in bankruptcy proceedings for exclusion of their own property from the bankruptcy estate, no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention or of Article II(3)
(k) of the Constitution of BiH established
