Search
document

Document text Analytics

APOSTOLOVSKI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA and 15 other applications

Doc ref: 28704/11 • ECHR ID: 001-207151

Document date: November 30, 2020

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 4

APOSTOLOVSKI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA and 15 other applications

Doc ref: 28704/11 • ECHR ID: 001-207151

Document date: November 30, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 30 November 2020 Published on 21 December 2020

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 28704/11 Laste APOSTOLOVSKI against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 15 others – see appended list

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants (in case no. 73993/13, the applicant ’ s late husband) were employed with the army of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”). Being stationed in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they were allocated military flats there. Some of them purchased their flats shortly before the 1992-95 war (compare Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010), whereas the others did not (compare Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012). All of them left their flats when the war started and joined foreign armed forces. After the war, their restitution claims were rejected pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998. The applicants claim that they have been neither allocated a military flat nor provided with a loan, co-financed by the military authorities, in any other successor State of the SFRY. On different dates, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found a violation of the applicants ’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their pre-war military flats. While reiterating that it was not disproportionate to reject restitution claims regarding military flats pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998, the Constitutional Court held that those who had purchased their military flats before the 1992-95 war as well as those who had not, but who had not acquired a military flat in a successor State of the SFRY, must be given fair compensation . Only the applicant in case no. 28704/11 has not obtained such a decision. It would appear that none of the applicants have so far been given compensation in that respect .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arising from the applicants ’ inability to return to their pre-war homes?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

28704/11

Apostolovski v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

9544/12

Jakovljević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

45699/13

Knežević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

45812/13

Marković v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

45899/13

Miladinović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

45900/13

Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

48089/13

Lalić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

52879/13

Ivančić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

73993/13

Mutavdžić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

74240/13

Popović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

27385/14

Mandžo v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

62215/15

Bulatović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

17300/16

Cvetković v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

53625/16

Sigur v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

55327/16

Bogdanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

36174/17

Prodanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant