Violation of the Right to the Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions Laid Down in the Convention
The authors of this paper provide an overview of the creation and development of tenancy rights, and of the domestic legislation dealing with tenancy rights, as well as legislation that was used to reform tenancy relations. They mention the significance of the enactment of the Lease of Flats Act, wh...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci |
| Online Access: | http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/227394 |
| Summary: | The authors of this paper provide an overview of the creation and development of tenancy rights, and of the domestic legislation dealing with tenancy rights, as well as legislation that was used to reform tenancy relations. They mention the significance of the enactment of the Lease of Flats Act, when tenancy rights were withdrawn from persons who were entitled to that right pursuant to earlier legislation, and consequently, they became lessees (tenants) by force of law (generally, protected lessees). The authors recall that issues related to the transformation of tenancy rights into ownership of flats and to the numerous court cases that followed from this matter have not yet become either general, or court, history. The authors cite the positions and case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, and of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). They stress in particular the ECtHR judgment Statileo v. Croatia, where the ECtHR took into consideration the fact that the Croatian authorities during the transition were faced with the difficult task of striking a balance between the right of the lessor and that of protected lessees who had lived in the flats for a long time, and concluded that in the given case there was no fair distribution of the social and financial burden resulting from the reform of the housing sector. Rather, the ECtHR held that a disproportionate and excessive individual burden was placed on the applicant as landlord, as he was required to bear most of the social and financial costs of providing housing for the protected lessee and her family, due to which the ECtHR found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1330-349X 1846-8314 |