There can be no basis in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for a claim based on monetary changes (inflation and currency changes) which occurred after the judgment of the Court.
•    Decision No. U 11/01 of 25 February 2001, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/02

In case of lawful erection of a temporary business premises on the city construction plot of land dispossessed from the appellant’s husband as the former user, there was no interference with the appellant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of property so that the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention has not been violated.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 1066/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraphs 29 and 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22/06

The Constitutional Court concludes that Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to effectively protect the appellant’s right to property by failing to pass a framework law whereby the issue of payment of old foreign currency savings would be regulated, which amounted to the violation of the rights laid down in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 130/04 of 2 December 2005, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/06; foreign currency savings

A justified interference cannot be imposed only by the legislative provision that meets the criterion of “lawfulness” and serves the legitimate aim in the public interest but it must also maintain a reasonable relation of “proportionality” between the means used and the aim sought to be achieved. The interference with the right to property must not exceed the necessary limits in achieving the legitimate aim, and the occupancy right holders must not be subject to an arbitrary treatment nor required to bear an excessive burden in order to achieve a legitimate aim.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 376, 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 “war-related” damages compensation; 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

There is no interference with the appellant’s property safeguarded by Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, since it has been established that the appellant did not provide evidence proving that the defendant had a civil locus standi based on which an obligation would be imposed on the defendant, and the appellant would have the authorization to require the fulfilment of such an obligation.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 1231/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 61/06; civil proceedings, standing to be sued

The rulings whereby the Supreme Court and customs authorities imposed a measure of the confiscation of a vehicle, for which the appellant paid a purchase price to the seller and which represents the appellant’s ownership, constitute interference with the appellant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of property and deprivation of the appellant’s property.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 2078/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 42, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7/07; confiscation of a vehicle for customs offence

The challenged court decision rejecting, because of absolute lack of jurisdiction, the appellant’s lawsuit trespass for does not constitute an interference with the appellant’s property so that there is no violation of the appellant’s right 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 the Merits No. AP 570/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06

The challenged court rulings whereby the appellant was ordered to refrain from trespassing and to allow the plaintiff to exercise the servitude right to cross the land which is the appellant’s property, indisputably constitute an interference with his right to a peaceful enjoyment of property.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1292/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06; the servitude right

The Supreme Court’s judgment denying the appellants’ right to the collection of a debt due to the monetary and law changes which took place after the conclusion of the contract, i.e. at the time when term deposit in dinars was to be returned in accordance with the concluded contract, constitutes an interference with the property and deprivation of the appellants’ rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2158/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/07;
non-payment of a debt due to the monetary and law changes which took place after the conclusion of contract; 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 notes that the failure to make a decision upon the appellant’s action aimed at entering into possession of the real property in question constitutes the interference with the appellant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. Furthermore, it is indisputable that the appellant, due to the excessive length of the proceedings, has been prevented from peacefully enjoying his property during a period of twenty years and four months, out of which thirteen years and four months fall under the scope of examination of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court holds that the court’s delay in making a final decision on the appellant’s claim places an “excessive burden” on the appellant and that there is no legitimate aim justifying such interference.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 393/07 of 13 May 2009, paragraph 40, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 64/09; reasonable time; the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(k) of the Constitution of BiH established
Starting from the restriction of the right to property that the appellant Boras purchased from the appellant Smoljan (in particular, a share in the company representing the joined property of the plaintiff and the appellant Smoljan), the ordinary courts, inter alia, pointed out that such contract was null and void in terms of Article 103 of the Law on Obligations and that it did not generate a legal effect as being contrary to the relevant provisions of the Family Law, which, in the particular case, is lex specialis, contrary to the appellant’s assertions. Thus, in view of the circumstances of the case at hand, the content of relevant provisions of the Family Law, the Law on Obligations, the Law on Enterprises and the Law on Registration of Business Entities, which have been applied in the case, the Constitutional Court holds that in addition to the fact that the constitutional rights of the appellant Boras have not been abused, an “excessive burden” has not been placed on the appellant Boras and the legal modalities of the aforementioned restrictions have been proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1730/11 of 8 May 2014, paragraph 40, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50/14; sale of business shares without consent of former spouse; the marital property; the nullity; 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 challenged judgments violated 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 in the situation where the Supreme Court and the County Court did not recognize the application with CRPC and with the competent Ministry as relevant procedural actions, in terms of Article 388 of the Law on Obligations, that led to the interruption of the limitation period, which resulted in an unlawful interference with the appellants’ right to property.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 5070/10 of 29 May 2014, paragraph 61,  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  50/14;  the interruption of the statute of limitations; civil proceedings for compensation of damage caused by a total destruction of the relevant real property; the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH established;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 303/10 of 4 July 2014, paragraph 41, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 64/14;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4383/11 of 26 March 2015, paragraph 46, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 33/15

The Constitutional Court notes that in the reasoning of the contested judgment of the Supreme Court it found as correct the conclusion of the first instance court that the guarantee contract was not null and void in terms of Article 103 of the Law on Obligations since it had been concluded pursuant to Article 251(c) of the Law on Enforcement Procedure. In favor of that position, the Supreme Court pointed out that it was indisputable in the course of proceedings that the second defendant had been registered in Public Register as the owner of the apartment in question and the relevant apartment had been in his possession at the time of entry into guarantee contract. Furthermore, the reasoning of the challenged judgement of the Supreme Court indicates that in accordance with such establishment of undisputed facts, the first defendant did not know or could have known that the second defendant has not been the owner of the real property in question, i.e. that there was nothing in the particular case to point to the conclusion on the existence of an unregistered owner. Therefore, it was concluded that the first defendant was conscientious at the time of entry into contract. Finally, from the reasoning of the challenged judgement of the Supreme Court it follows that in the situation in which the issue of application of the principle under which no one can transfer to another more rights than he/she possesses or the principle of trust in public registers is raised, the principle of trust in public registers should be applied. In favour of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court pointed out that in the circumstances of the particular case, when at the time the apartment was placed under mortgage, the appellant was not in the possession thereof and the second defendant had been registered both as the owner and possessor and when a long time had passed from the date the appellant acquired the basis for registration in the Land Registry Books, and the appellant treated the apartment in question carelessly (which could not have been justified with the war circumstances) the principle of trust in public registers is to be applied. Consequently, the Supreme Court took a position that it is in the interest of legal transactions that the one who conscientiously, by orderly registration in the Land Registry Books as Public Records, acquires the right of lien on real property registered in Land Registry Books, will acquire that registered right although the situation outside the Land Registry Books does not correspond to the situation in the Land Registry Books. The Constitutional Court holds that in the circumstances of the particular case there is nothing which would point to the conclusion that the challenged judgement of the Supreme Court results in the interference with the appellant’s right to property which is not in accordance with the law given that it is indisputably established that the guarantee contract was concluded in accordance with Article 251(c) of the Law on Enforcement Procedure.
•    Decision No. AP 3738/12 of 8 December 2015, paragraphs 41 and 42; the procedure of establishing the guarantee contract nullity, the principle of trust in Public registers; 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