Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

Veselinski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.) - 45658/99

Decision 11.10.2001 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Retired servicemen of former Yugoslav Army deprived of right to buy at reduced price flats occupied by them, on the ground that they were not ow ned by the Yugoslav Army before the independence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: admissible

Article 14

Discrimination

Retired servicemen of former Yugoslav Army deprived of right to buy at reduced price flats occupied by them, on the ground t hat they were not owned by the Yugoslav Army before the independence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: admissible

[This summary also covers the decision of the case Djidrovski v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" , no. 46447/99, 11 Oct ober 2001.]

In former Yugoslavia, the army received contributions from the servicemen’s salaries which were used for the construction of apartments of which servicemen could be tenants. According to the 1990 Law on Housing of Army Servicemen, army servicem en, including retired servicemen, could purchase apartments which they occupied with a reduction corresponding to the amount of the contributions paid for the implementation of the housing policy of the army. According to this law, the price difference was to be covered by the army. The same purchase conditions applied whether the apartments belonged to the army or not. In 1991, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia declared its independence and adopted a Constitution, pursuant to which laws of former Y ugoslavia remained in force, except for those regulating the organisation and competence of the federal organs of former Yugoslavia. In February 1992, the Macedonian Government concluded an agreement with the Yugoslav Ministry of Defence for the settlement of claims and obligations in respect of real property. Following the agreement, the Macedonian Government took over all obligations of the Yugoslav Army as regards apartments belonging to the latter. In June 1996, however, the Constitutional Court abrogat ed the 1990 Law on Housing of Army Servicemen. As to the applicants, they were both retired servicemen of the Yugoslav army. When moving to Skopje, they had the flats which they had rented until then from the army exchanged for flats in Skopje. Unlike thei r previous flats, the flats which they obtained and in which they carried on living after retirement were not owned by the army but by the Socialist Republic of Macedonia. Between 1992 and 1994, they asked to purchase their respective flats in accordance w ith the 1990 Law on Housing of Army Servicemen, i.e. at a reduced price, which applied to flats whether owned by the army or not. They contended that the Macedonian Ministry of Defence was under duty to cover the price difference pursuant to 1990 law. The Government argued that, according to Government decisions, the 1990 law was not applicable to flats that had not previously belonged to the Yugoslav Army. In 1995, the applicants successfully instituted proceedings before the Municipal Court. Following the Government’s appeals against these decisions, the Appellate Court upheld the first instance decisions. However, in 1997, upon the Government’s appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the applicant s’ requests. It found that the 1990 Law on Housing of Army Servicemen governed the relations and status of the former Yugoslav army and its housing fund, both of which had ceased to exist. The court also held, inter alia , that as the Former Yugoslav Republ ic of Macedonia was not the legal successor of the former Yugoslav Army, it was under no obligation to cover for the price difference. The Supreme Court made no reference to the decision of the Constitutional Court abrogating the 1990 law.

Admissible under Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 14.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes