in the cases of

NENAD MILJKOVIĆ v. REPUBLIKA SRPSKA (Case No. CH/98/636),
NADA BLAGOJEVIĆ v. REPUBLIKA SRPSKA (Case No. CH/98/645),
LJILJANA GOGIĆ v. REPUBLIKA SRPSKA (Case No. CH/98/800),
DARKO PRODANOVIĆ v. REPUBLIKA SRPSKA (Case No. CH/98/814)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

All of the applicants entered into contracts concerning property in the Republika Srpska. The owners of the property left the Republika Srpska before or during the war and gave the applicants the right to use those properties. In 1998 the local Commission for the Accommodation of Refugees and Administration of Abandoned Property ("the Commission") in the relevant area declared the applicants to be illegal occupants of the properties and ordered them to vacate the properties within three days under threat of forcible eviction. These decisions were made under Article 10 of the 1996 Law on the Use of Abandoned Property. All the applicants, except for the applicant in case no. CH/98/814, appealed to the Ministry for Refugees and Displaced Persons against the decision of the Commission. None of the applicants had received any decisions on their appeals. 

FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The Chamber found in all cases that the decision of the respective Commission was an interference with their right to respect for their homes. This interference was not "in accordance with the law" as required by Article 8 paragraph 2 of the Convention, since the 1996 Law, as applied in the applicants' cases, had retroactively annulled their contracts, which were lawful at the time of their conclusion. Accordingly, the interference had not been foreseeable for the purposes of Article 8, nor had the 1996 Law afforded any effective safeguard against possible abuse. Article 8 had therefore been violated. 

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

In all cases except CH/98/645, the Chamber found that the retroactive nullification of the applicants' contracts by application of the 1996 Law constituted an interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This interference was not proportional to the aim sought to be achieved as the applicants had been forced to bear an individual and excessive burden. There was therefore a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In case no. CH/98/645, the Chamber did not consider it necessary to examine the case under this provision.

Article 13 of the Convention

In cases nos. CH/98/636 and CH/98/814, the Chamber found that the lack of any effective remedy under the law of the Republika Srpska against the actions of the Commission was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

Discrimination

In case no. CH/98/800, the Chamber did not consider that there was any evidence that the applicant had suffered any discrimination in enjoyment of the right to work, and thus there was no violation in this respect. 

REMEDIES

The Chamber ordered the Republika Srpska to revoke the decisions of the Commission in each of the four cases and to allow all of the applicants to enjoy undisturbed occupancy of the properties concerned in accordance with the terms of their contracts.