|
in the case of
MILOSAVA PANIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND
THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Case No. CH/97/65)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 1992 the applicant's husband contracted to purchase an apartment in Sarajevo from the Yugoslav National Army ("JNA"). While the applicant and her husband were in Belgrade for the husband's medical treatment, the General Staff of the Army of the then Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared the apartment temporarily abandoned. The applicant and her husband returned in February 1996 and requested reinstatement into their apartment. In May 1996 the General Staff of the Army declared the apartment permanently abandoned pursuant to the 1994 Law on Abandoned Apartments ("the old law"). In July 1998 the applicant applied for reinstatement under the 1998 Law on the Cessation of the Application of the Law on Abandoned Apartments ("the new law"). There was no response.
FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Reaffirming its previous case-law, the Chamber found that, at the time the December 1995 Decree came into force, the applicant had rights under her purchase contract which were "possessions" for purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The effect of the Decree was to annul those rights and deprive the applicant of her possessions. In the circumstances, the applicant had been made to bear an "individual and excessive burden" and thus there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 6 of the Convention
The Chamber noted that any court proceedings which the applicant would have initiated for the purpose of having her ownership of the apartment registered would have been adjourned shortly after the February 1995 Decree entered into force. As far as competent (as from 14 December 1995), the Chamber found that up to 1998 there had been a deprivation of the applicant's right of access to court and to a hearing within a reasonable time. Accordingly, there had also been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.
Article 8 of the Convention
The Chamber recalled its finding in the Kevešević case that the provisions of the old law, as applied also in the present case, failed to meet the standards of a "law" for purposes of Article 8. Thus, this provision had been violated by the decision of May 1996 to declare the apartment permanently abandoned. The applicant's repossession claim had not been finally examined in compliance with a time-limit established by the new law. There had thus been an ongoing violation of her right to respect for her home in that the procedure for examining her repossession claim had not been "in accordance with the law" either.
REMEDIES
The Chamber considered Bosnia and Herzegovina responsible for having passed the legislation resulting in the breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 but found that the matters were now within the responsibility of the Federation which recognises and applies this legislation. The Chamber ordered the Federation to take all necessary steps to: render ineffective the annulment of the contract; lift the compulsory adjournment of court proceedings aiming at formal recognition of the applicant's property right; and secure her right of access to court and a hearing within a reasonable time. The Chamber also ordered that the Federation through its authorities take immediate steps to reinstate the applicant into her apartment.
|
