In the context of the General Framework Agreement, the goal of eliminating the effects and traces of ethnic cleansing is considered as having such fundamental significance that in certain cases it affects the validity of legal transactions which would, otherwise, fulfill presumptions of civil law... The Court considers that it was clearly established that S. Z. had concluded a contract on exchange under the influence of her vulnerable position as a result of her ethnic affiliation at the time when the politics of ethnic cleansing had been pursued in the large part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and it is clear that the contract was not in accordance with her wishes under normal circumstances. Thus, one must presume that B. V., at least in a general way, was aware of the reasons which made S. Z. agree to the contract.

•    Decision No. U 15/99 of 15 December 2000, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 13/01; The Constitutional Court resolved the case on the merits by declaring the contract on exchange of real proprieties null and void

The Constitutional Court considers that the eviction of the appellant was in conformity with the law, that is that it was based on Article 22 paragraph 3 and Article 30 paragraph 2 of the Law on Housing Relations, that the law was accessible as it was published in official gazettes that are public and any person interested might familiarize oneself with its respective contents.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 45/02 of 30 June 2004, paragraphs 76 to 79, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04; the transfer of occupancy right from grandfather to grandson; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH

Considering that the administration bodies and ordinary courts justified their interference with the appellant’s home by the application of the legal provision, which had been previously established as the provision that should not have been applied in the present case, it follows that the interference with the appellant’s home was not based on the law, as in the present case it was not possible to apply the provision of Article 2 paragraph 3 of the Law on Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, or any other provision on the basis of which it would be possible to deny to the appellant the return to the apartment at issue.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 979/04 of 23 September 2005, paragraph 49, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/05; administrative procedure for the repossession of apartment

The provision of the Law on the Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, allowing for ex officio decision-making on the status of the appellant as a temporary user of the apartment for which no return claim had been filed, is a measure serving the significant public interest of securing alternative accommodation with the aim to solve thousands of unsettled property claims in the most efficient way possible.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2133/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/07; the status of a temporary occupant of apartment for which no repossession claim had been filed; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH

Establishing ex officio that the appellant’s temporary right to use the respective apartment has ceased, placing the apartment under the temporary management of the Municipality and its repossession to the owner constitutes lawful interference with the appellant’s rights serving the legitimate goal, that is making possible a just and lawful division of the housing fund during the peacetime, in accordance with priorities prescribed in Article 7 of the Law on Return, Allocation and Sale of Apartments and the provisions of relevant general acts of an employer, that is of the party allocating an apartment for use.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2133/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/07; the status of a temporary occupant of apartment for which no repossession claim had been filed; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH

The interference with the right to home was not in conformity with “law” on the grounds that the actions of the SFOR members in particular cases exceeded the scope of what has been provided for by the national law and the international documents norms.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2582/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 93, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/07; arrest by SFOR and search of apartment; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is no violation of the right to home when the appellant, as a former member of the household of the occupancy right holder, who, under the Law on the Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, may be treated as “a displaced person”, failed to initiate the procedure of repossession of the apartment in accordance with the Law on the Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, thereby losing her right to “home” and the legal interest to challenge the status of occupancy right holder of the third person over the respective apartment. Furthermore, even if she had the legal interest, given that she was a signatory to the agreement on determining the occupancy right holder over the apartment which was her home, she could have challenged the legal validity of the agreement only by meeting the time limits provided for by the Law on Obligations, which she missed.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1822/06 of 27 February 2008, paragraphs 29 and 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/08; occupancy right; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH

There is no violation of the right to respect for home under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention in relation to the appellant’s allegations on the failure to issue final decisions on his claims for the repossession of apartment, where legal authorization of the competent bodies to terminate the procedure of the enforcement of the CRPC decision existed. By referring to the position of the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court concluded that the competent administrative bodies could not conduct parallel procedures regarding the appellant’s claim for the repossession of apartment vis-à-vis the procedure of the enforcement of the CRPC decision.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1970/06 of 15 January 2009, paragraph 52, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 26/09; the procedure for the repossession of apartment; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court holds that the challenged court decisions violated the appellant’s right to home under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention, as they amount to unlawful interference with the appellant’s right. The interference is unlawful because ordinary courts granted the plaintiff’s claim for the eviction of the appellant from the apartment in question over which she acquired the ownership right, through the application solely of the provision of Article 43 of the Law on the Basis of Ownership Relations, and they disregarded the existence of a legally binding ruling of the Basic Court no. Rs-6/90 from 1990, which established the plaintiff’s obligation to provide for the necessary accommodation for the appellant as a condition for his eviction from the apartment in question.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 646/08 of 10 June 2009, paragraph 35, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 82/09; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court concludes that in the respective proceedings, namely in the proceedings in which no final decision has been adopted for over five years and in which the case has been constantly referred back from the higher to the lower instance body, as a result of which the appellant is unable to exercise his right to apartment, the appellant’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention was violated. Therefore, the Constitutional Court holds that the appellant’s right to home under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention was violated.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No.  AP 814/07 of 14 October 2009, paragraph 50, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/09; the length of the proceedings for the adoption of a ruling substituting the agreement on the use of apartment after the adoption of the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH, which established in the same case the violation of the appellant’s right to home; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is a violation of the right to home under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention, where an authorized person in the course of executing a warrant for the search of apartment, contrary to an explicit legal provision, fails to serve the person at whose place the search is being carried out with a search warrant prior to starting the search.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3376/07 of 28 April 2010, paragraph 49, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 95/10; special investigation actions; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court concludes that the failure of the competent authorities to complete the procedure of the execution of the conclusion on the permission to carry out execution constitutes the interference with the appellant’s right to home, which does not meet the criterion “accordance with the law” referred to in Article 8(2) of the European Convention, which resulted in the violation of the appellant’s right to home under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3377/09 of 18 April 2012, paragraph 57, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 47/12; the entry into the possession of apartment; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established

The interference of the public authorities with the appellant’s right to home had been carried out in conformity with the law, which the Constitutional Court found to be in the public interest and that it did not allow the repossession of apartment to a person who had remained, after 19 May 1992, in the service of any armed forces outside the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the registration in the books of the ownership right on that apartment, although the ordinary courts established in the proceedings before them that the legally binding contract existed, since the challenged decisions of the ordinary courts referred them to seek in accordance with the law the prescribed compensation instead of the natural restitution.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1205/08 of 13 July 2012, paragraph 67, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 79/12; JNA apartments; a 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 Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there is a violation of the right to home under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention, because the interference with the appellant’s right is unlawful, since she, as a factual user of electric power within the meaning of Article 75(4) of the Law on Ownership Relations, was thwarted from enjoying the use of her “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 926/13 of 25 April 2013, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 47/12; the disturbance of the possession of the family house and of the right to use electric power; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established