In the present case, the premises which the appellant uses as a hold-over tenant (based on a tenancy at sufferance) shall not be regarded as property.
• Decision No. U 11/02 of 26 June 2003, paragraph 25, the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/03; the civil proceedings related to the issue of ownership over jointly possessed premises of a building; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
There is no “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention because the appellant did not acquire the property by inheritance as it was established by the ordinary court in a civil procedure, therefore she could not be deprived of her property.
• Decision No. U 65/02 of 26 September 2003, paragraph 45, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/03;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 12/03 of 26 March 2004, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18/04
The first-appellant, by concluding a contract on giving his consent to the use of an apartment on a one-time basis, acquired the right to select an employee to whom the other contracting party as the owner of the apartment would issue a ruling on allocating the apartment for use suitable for concluding a contract on the use of the apartment and thereby the acquisition of the occupancy right. Therefore, the essence of the right acquired by the first-appellant does not constitute an economic value within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention but only a possibility of resolving a social problem by selecting an employee whose social problem would be resolved by subsequent allocation of the apartment by the owner.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 69/03 of 19 April 2004, paragraph 18
The appellant did not acquire “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention since the right to property does not exist until the moment the person’s right to a property has been legally established.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 43/03 of 17 May 2004, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/04; civil proceedings to establish the occupancy right
The occupancy right cannot be acquired by inheritance so as to provide the protection under this Article to the appellant as if she acquired that right, as if the amount in question paid for the purchase of that apartment constituted her property.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 52/03 of 17 May 2004, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04
The apartment over which the appellant has not acquired the occupancy right shall not be considered the appellant’s property.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 120/03 of 17 May 2004, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/04
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention protects only the existing property and possessions, but does not include rights or expectations to acquire property in the future. (Decision no. U 37/00 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/02 of 29 August 2002 and Decision no. U 12/01 published the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/02 of 3 August 2002
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 154/03 of 15 June 2004, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 61/02 of 30 June 2004, paragraph 20, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04; the probate proceedings;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 203/02 of 30 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04; compensation for damage arising from employment – future property
The appellant failed to prove in the administrative and judicial proceedings that he met the requirements for the acquisition of occupancy right so that the appellant did not appear as the holder of the occupancy right in this case. Therefore, the appellant is not the occupancy right holder and, therefore, there is no property protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 45/02 of 30 June 2004, paragraph 84, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04; transfer of the occupancy right from a grandfather to a grandson; 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
Based on the evidence enclosed with the case-file, the Constitutional Court concluded that the appellant did not acquire the property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, since the right to property does not exist until the moment the person’s right to property is established. Therefore, rendering a judgment within the meaning of Article 25 of the Law on Legal Ownership Relations, according to the claim to establish the ownership right on an apartment, cannot constitute 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.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 91/02 of 23 July 2004; paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/04; the acquisition of the ownership right on a constructed object
The appellant does not have the right to restore the funds he had invested in an abandoned apartment, which he received for temporary use, since he undertook to restore the apartment in question “at his own expense” so that he did not acquire the property which could be protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, thus the mentioned Article is not applicable to the case in question.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 72/03 of 21 July 2004, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04
The appellant did not acquire the property protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, i.e. the right to collect the rent set forth in the contract on lease, since the contract on lease was null and void.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 14/03 of 22 September 2004, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 60/04
The expectations of a family household member that he would become the occupancy right holder after the death of the occupancy right holder cannot be regarded as property, therefore it is not protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 21/03 of 22 September 2004, paragraph 47, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 54/04;
• Decision No. U 12/01 of 25 February 2002, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/02; a grandson - status as a member of the family household in the Republika Srpska;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 380/04 of 26 April 2005, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; the transfer of the occupancy right to a child; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention protects only the existing property and possessions, but it does not include rights or expectations to acquire property in the future, for example by inheritance.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 380/04 of 26 April 2005, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; the transfer of the occupancy right to a child; there is no violation of Article of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 418/04 of 22 April 2005, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; repossession on an apartment based on a Contract on Lease, the JNA apartment; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
The confiscated goods as the subject of a criminal offence do not constitute possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 393/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraphs 17 and 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05
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, since the appellant claimed the payment of compensation for the confiscated property, while the court did not find in a court proceeding that it was the appellant’s property.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1050/04 of 26 April 2005, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/05
In the instant case, the ordinary courts found that the appellant had never been registered in the land books as a user of the property in question and it was not proved that he was the legal successor of the previous owner. Therefore, the appellant has no a property based on which the relevant property right would be established and thus the property in question is not the appellant’s property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 983/04 of 27 May 2005, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 78/05
In the event where the challenged decision established that a contract on the apartment use is null and void, whereby the appellant has never moved in the apartment in question, such an apartment does not constitute possessions within the meaning of 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 281/05 of 28 June 2005, paragraphs 33 and 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 60/05
The apartment acquired on the basis of an invalid contract cannot be regarded as property.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 497/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/06; civil proceedings, the annulment of the contract on purchase; there is no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
In the instant case, the appellant has nevermoved into the apartment in question so that he has never acquired the occupancy right in accordance with Article 11 of the Law on Housing Relations. Therefore, the appellant has no occupancy right established on the disputed apartment and thus has no protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 995/04 of 22 July 2005, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4/06
There is no violation of the right to property where the appellant, although she used the apartment in accordance with the contract for lifelong sustenance, did not have the occupancy right established on the apartment in question, nor could she expect to acquire that right according to the law, consequently she has no “possessions” protected under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 959/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 3/06
There are no possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention where the appellant has failed to prove in the judicial proceedings that she had the constituted ownership right.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1488/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/07; the servitude right
In the case where the appellant lost the possession of the apartment and the occupancy right, and the apartment has been allocated for use to another person, the appellant has no legally recognized status of an occupancy right holder of the apartment in question, so that the apartment in question cannot be regarded as her property within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1038/04 of 23 September 2005, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4/06
There is no 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, since the defendant performed the construction work in question on his own plot of land, on which the appellant has no relevant property right within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1092/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 14/06
In the case at hand, considering that the appellant failed to prove in the judicial proceedings that the claim existed, there was no property enjoying the protection under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1072/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22/06
The right to disability family pension, which the appellant expected to have in the circumstances of this case (the claim for the recognition of the family disability pension due to the death of the daughter was dismissed), cannot constitute his possessions, since the appellant did not meet the requirements prescribed by the law to acquire that right.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1045/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 51, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/06
There is no violation of the right to property, as the present case concerned the apartment, which was nationalized in accordance with the Law on Nationalization of Lease Buildings and Construction Land, therefore the apartment in question cannot be regarded as possessions of the appellant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 68/05 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 43, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37/06
There is no violation of the right to property, since the appellant did not have “justified expectations” according to the law that he would receive compensation for the lost income in respect of the determined period of time during which he was mobilized, so that the requested amount of compensation for the loss of income he requested in the claim does not constitute property protected within the aforementioned constitutional right.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 147/05 of 2 April 2006, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 49/06
The appellant failed to prove in the court proceedings, which resulted in the challenged decisions, that she met the requirements for the acquisition of the occupancy right, although she was in possession of the disputed apartment for over three years. Therefore, the appellant does not appear in this case as the holder of occupancy right, and there are no possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 587/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 44, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/06
A claim arising from the contract, which was ex lege null and void at the time of its conclusion, cannot constitute a “legitimate expectation” and, accordingly, “the possessions” protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1236/06 of 13 September 2007, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 86/07; a claim arising from a lease 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 Bosnia and Herzegovina;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1846/06 of 12 June 2008, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 72/08;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 920/07 of 10 June 2009, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 82/09
There is no violation of the right to property when the appellant could not have, according to the provisions of the Family Law, a “legitimate expectation” that she would succeed in part of her claim relating to the separate property of her ex-husband, therefore she has no “possessions” within the meaning of the aforementioned Article.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2349/06 of 27 February 2008, paragraph 48, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4/06; 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
In the present case the appellant was not a party to the respective criminal proceedings. In the respective criminal proceedings, as it follows from the facts of the case, the appellant’s husband appeared as defense witness claiming that the disputed amount of money belonged to him, the appellant and their daughter (the appellant’s wife) offering as evidence for his allegations the certificates of the taken loans in the name of the appellant and their daughter, as well as that it was a portion of the turnover from their catering facility, but that he filed to offer any evidence whatsoever in that regard. The Constitutional Court observes that, in that respect, the second-instance court concluded that those were not convincing evidence on the origin of the confiscated money, particularly for the reason that from the day of taking the loans (the first was taken in July 2008) to the day of finding the money in the appellant’s car (13 March 2009) a long period of time elapsed, and that, on the other hand, within the meaning of Article 110(a) of the Criminal Code of BiH, the allegations of the Prosecutor’s Office were more probable in that they read that it was the money acquired through the perpetration of a criminal offense. Considering the aforementioned, and as no evidence or argument considered during the said proceedings do not give rise to a conclusion that the disputed amount of money belonged to the appellant, the Constitutional Court concluded that the appellant failed to prove that the disputed money constituted her “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention (op. cit. Decision Gratzinger, paragraph 74), which is the reason why the appellant’s allegations on the violation of the right to property do not fall within the scope of the mentioned article, rather they are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3433/11 of 17 July 2014, paragraph 41, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 71/14; the confiscation of illegally acquired gain – money; criminal proceedings
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 where the appellant did not have a “legitimate expectation” that the claimed amount of money relating to the indirect tax calculated in the price of the purchased goods, would be refunded to him, since he was aware that the conditions provided for in Article 63 of the Rules on Implementation of the VAT Law were not met.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4353/16 of 5 July 2019, paragraph 31; refund of the portion of the monetary amount for the goods purchased from the defendant in respect of the VAT calculated in the price of the goods, which the appellant claimed to be unlawfully retained by the defendant
