|
in the case of
D.K. v. THE REPUBLIKA SRPSKA
(Case No. CH/98/710)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The applicant lived in an apartment in Kozarska Dubica in the Republika Srpska with his family. On 19 December 1997, he and his wife entered into a contract with C.Š., the wife of the holder of the occupancy right over the apartment. Her husband had died and under the Law on Housing Relations she was entitled to succeed into the occupancy right over the apartment. However, she had not taken the formal steps required for her to succeed. According to the terms of the contract, the applicant would care for C.Š. during her lifetime and upon her death he would obtain the occupancy right. However, such contracts were not recognised under the applicable law of the Republika Srpska. C.Š. died on 23 December 1997. The applicant applied to the relevant national authorities to be allowed to obtain the occupancy right over the apartment, without success.
The Chamber had ordered the Republika Srpska as a provisional measure to prevent the applicant's eviction from the apartment. However, in July 1998 the applicant was evicted from the apartment, in violation of this order.
FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
The Chamber held that the eviction of the applicant from the apartment concerned constituted a violation of his right to respect for his home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. This was because orders for provisional measures issued by the Chamber are binding in the legal systems of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its entities. Accordingly, an eviction in violation of an order for provisional measures is not in accordance with the law, as required by Article 8 of the Convention. However, the Chamber further found that at the time of the eviction, the applicant had no protected right over the apartment, and thus had no right to live there.
REMEDIES
The Chamber held that its finding of a violation of the rights of the applicant as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention constituted a sufficient remedy for those violations. Accordingly it did not order the Republika Srpska to take any action.
Mr. Jakob Möller and Mr. Vitomir Popović attached a Dissenting Opinion to the decision.
|
