Bearing in mind that the appellant was not in a position to exercise the right to return to his home, although the situation in which temporary allocation of apartments had been justified was over long ago, the “interference”, which could have been justified at the beginning and in conformity with the principle of “necessity”, does not constitute, eight years after the end of the war, the necessary “interference in a democratic society” with the appellant’s right to return to his home
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 102/03 of 28 April 2004, paragraph 36, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/04; administrative procedure and administrative dispute for the repossession of apartment over which no occupancy right was acquired as the building was not provisionally accepted as finished
Dismissing the appellant’s proposal to establish that he was the occupancy right holder over the disputed apartment constitutes a measure which was not “necessary in a democratic society” and, therefore, it is not proportionate to the legitimate goal sought to be achieved.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 323/04 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/05
The competent bodies did not violate the appellant’s right to home by establishing in the proceedings conducted that the appellant had no right to repossess the apartment, as he missed the preclusive statutory time limit for filing the claim for repossession, since the interference was based on the law and necessary “interference in a democratic society”.
• Decision on Merits No. AP 1082/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/06;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4/05 of 27 May 2005, paragraph 47, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 58/05
A person who lived in an apartment on the basis of a temporary ruling issued by the occupancy right holder cannot have a status of unlawful user of apartment, and therefore the respective person could not be protected against eviction from the respective apartment in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Law on Housing Relations.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2148/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 43, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/07; persons without a status of unlawful user of apartment, 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 private and family life under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention where the search of his housing and catering facility had been carried out on the basis of a warrant issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH, which is the reason why it constitutes a necessary measure in a democratic society in the interest of public order and peace, and the very fact that the thing alleged in the search warrant had not been found during the search in no way indicated that het search was unlawful, or that the appellant’s mentioned constitutional right to respect for private and family life was violated.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2148/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 43, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50/09
There is no violation of the right to family life under Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention when the appellant’s right to live with his underage children was revoked due to substantial neglect of parental duties given the fact that the circumstances of the present case indicate that such a measure is “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 717/08 of 9 July 2010, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 101/10
The present case concerns the appellant who has an interest in the apartment in question, which he wishes to use as his home. On the other hand, it concerns the plaintiff - counter- defendant that has an interest in the apartment in question (over which the plaintiff - counter-defendant has the right of disposal) situated in the shacks; the plaintiff-counter- defendant wishes to use the apartment in question for one’s own purposes (and not to lease it to the appellant). In assessing whether the interference with the appellant’s right to home was “necessary in a democratic society”, the Constitutional Court holds that the important fact shows that the appellant has been uninterruptedly occupying the apartment in question for almost 20 years and that the plaintiff - counter-defendant, before the war conflict, allocated that apartment for use. Hence, in the view of the Constitutional Court, there has been no urgent social need justifying the interference with the appellant’s right to respect for home. The Constitutional Court holds that the mentioned interest of the plaintiff - counter-defendant to use the apartment in question for one’s own purposes cannot prevail over the interest of the appellant to continue to use the apartment in question as his home, wherein he and his family have been living for almost 20 years (see, mutatis mutandis, Constitutional Court, Decision on Admissibility and Merits no. AP 21/03 of 22 September 2004, paragraph 40, published in the Official Gazette of BiH no. 54/04, and Decision on the Merits No. AP 663/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of BiH, 86/05).
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1164/08 of 27 May 2011, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/11; premises for special purposes in the present case constitutes a home; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH
The Constitutional Court finds that the reasoning which was given by the Court, based on the established facts that are undisputed – that the removal of the appellant in order to protect national interest is a necessary measure in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate goal – is satisfactory and does not indicate any arbitrariness. The Constitutional Court holds that the aforementioned satisfies the principle enunciated in its Decision no. AP 1222/07, according to which the courts must carefully examine the grounds for decision-making and consider whether the interference with the right can be justified in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court finds that the appellant was ordered to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina since the appellant failed to prove that he and his family would be in danger if they stayed in Iraq. Therefore, the Constitutional Court holds that the challenged decisions are a measure necessary in a democratic society to achieve the rule of law and that there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim of the protection of public order and national security in BiH, on the one hand, and of the protection of the appellant’s right to family life, on the other hand.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1483/10 of 23 September 2011, paragraph 60, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/11; alien, temporary stay; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH
