Possessing and occupying real property suggests that the respective real property may be considered home, which, in the broadest sense of the term, may be defined as a place where person lives.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1049/05 of 14 March 2003, paragraph 42, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 59/06
An apartment where the appellant lived long enough, in a common-law marriage with the occupancy right holder, in order to be considered a member of a household, shall be his/her home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision No. U 65/01 of 25 July 2003, paragraph 54, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/03; transfer of occupancy right to common-law partner; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention established
One may consider as “home” an apartment over which no occupancy right has been acquired, rather it was used on the basis of a ruling on the use of apartment as the building was not provisionally accepted as finished, but there were other elements suggesting that “home” did exist.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 102/03 of 28 April 2004, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/04; administrative proceedings and administrative dispute for the repossession of apartment over which no occupancy right had been acquired as the building had not been provisionally accepted as finished
Since this concerns a socially-owned apartment, which the appellant was allocated during the regular allocation of apartments in accordance with normative provisions of the owner of apartment and the established rank-list, undoubtedly this issue is about home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 26/03 of 30 June 2004, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/04; contentious proceedings for eviction of unlawful apartment occupant
The Constitutional Court holds that the appellant legally used the apartment at issue, as his grandfather lived in it, whom with he had a lifelong support agreement. Therefore, the apartment at issue may be considered the appellant’s home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 45/02 of 30 June 2004, paragraph 72, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04; transfer of occupancy right from a grandfather to a grandson; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH
An apartment where the appellant had lived with her mother up until 1993, and then left as a result of the war, just to return to and exercise her right to return as a refugee in accordance with Annex 7, shall be considered the appellant’s “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 21/03 of 22 September 2004, paragraphs 35 and 36, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 54/04
The apartment where the appellant has lived for 14 years, where he has engaged in his usual activities, and where he has continued to live after his grandmother’s death, where he started his family and where he has lived to this day, shall constitute the appellant’s “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 323/04 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/05
The apartment where the appellant had lived for a long time with his grandmother, and continued using it after her death shall be his home regardless of the fact that he was not registered at the address of the apartment at issue.
• Decision No. U 1/02 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 36, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/04; the transfer of occupancy right to grandson, contract on lifelong support; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established
The term “home” comprises a rented home, as well as a privately-owned home and apartments occupied on the basis of occupancy right.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 380/04 of 26 April 2005, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; the transfer of occupancy right to a child; there is no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 455/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraph 21, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22/06; 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
Within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention a “home” shall be also an apartment that a person has moved into on the basis of the ruling on allocation of apartment, even if the contract on the use of apartment has not been concluded.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 455/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraph 21, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22/06; 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
An apartment which is occupied on the basis of a lease agreement shall be considered home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 418/04 of 22 April 2005, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; the repossession of apartment on the basis of lease agreement, JNA 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 concluded that the mentioned apartment should be considered the appellant’s home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention, as the appellant was a lawful holder of the occupancy right over the said apartment up until 1992, when she left Bosnia and Herzegovina due to the war.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1082/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/06; the appeal dismissed as the preclusive time limit for the repossession of apartment was missed
Business premises where the appellant practices law may be considered in the present case the appellant’s home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention, considering the nature of the appellant’s practice and the manner in which the appellant uses the premises at issue.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 301/04 of 23 September 2005, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 80/05
“Home” is a factual state of affairs, which does not require existence of legal grounds.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 663/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 86/05; exercising the right to apartment; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established
An apartment where the appellant lives on the basis of agreement on use shall be considered home of the appellant, although she has not obtained a legal status of an occupancy right holder over the respective apartment.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 645/04 of 2 December 2005, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06; civil proceedings, acquiring the right to apartment after canceling the agreement on use to the occupancy right holder; a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH established
The fact that the appellant’s occupancy right has ceased ex lege, pursuant to Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Law on Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments, does not represent an obstacle for the disputed apartment to be considered his home.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 964/04 of 3 December 2005, paragraphs 23 and 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/06
Given the facts that the appellant had lived for a long time with her grandfather in the disputed apartment, and that she has continued to use it even after his death, the apartment at issue represents her “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. U 49/03 of 27 May 2006, paragraphs 33 and 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7/07; administrative proceedings for the transfer of occupancy right
The term “home” comprises a rented home, as well as a privately-owned home (see the European Court of Human Rights, Gillow v. Great Britain, judgment of 24 November 1986, series A, No. 109, paragraph 46. f, Kroon v. The Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, series A, No. 297-C, paragraph 31). In accordance with this interpretation, the Constitutional Court expanded the scope of Article 8 of the European Convention to include apartments occupied on the basis of occupancy right (see the Constitutional Court, Decision no. U 8/99 of 11 May 1999, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/99).
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1812/05 of 8 July 2006, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06; apartments occupied on the basis of occupancy right
The existence of continuity of children living with occupancy right holder in a shared household at the time of death of a parent is a precondition for one to acquire the status of a family household member (see the Constitutional Court, Decision no. U 1/02 of 26 September 2003, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/04; Decision no. U 12/01 of 25 February 2002, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/02, and Decision no. U 140/03 of 21 January 2004, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6/04).
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1812/05 of 8 July 2006, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06; apartments occupied on the basis of occupancy right
In answering the question whether, in the present case, the family house located on the plot co-owned by the appellant constitutes the appellant’s home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention, the Constitutional Court finds that it follows from the appellate allegations that the appellant did not live in the family home, located on the plot that she co-owns, but the appellant’s mother lives in the house with a daughter-in- law and two children, while the appellant resides there on the weekends. However, the term “home” also includes a second home, where there is a strong emotional attachment to that second home. Thus, the Constitutional Court recalls that the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Demades v. Turkey (see, the European Court of Human Rights, Demades v. Turkey, judgment of 31 July 2003, paragraphs 31 to 34) concluded that it was not always possible to accurately assess what for someone is considered to be a home, since one can live in two locations and establish strong emotional bonds with another home, in fact, consider it as a real home. For these reasons, the European Court accepted that the applicant’s second home was, in this case, the same as a “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court considers that the family home constitutes the appellant’s home within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 745/17 of 13 February 2019, paragraph 54
