those flats.

    Prior transactions with the flat The flat at 26/2-37, Ulitsa Ordzhonikidze, Ufa, was originally owned by G. and G. Both of them died on 15   March 2010.

  42897/18 In 2011 the applicant invested in the construction of a 50 sq. m flat in an apartment block in the town of Foros.

Lastly, it was decided that the flat would be given directly to the applicant. 8.

As to the alternative grounds of appeal the Regional Court held in both judgments that the Rent Board had assessed the standard of the flats correctly. 18.

such flats. 18.

Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to introduce compensatory remedy to provide effective relief for breach of property rights of rent-controlled flat

The applicant lived with her parents in a flat in Zagreb. Her father had a protected tenancy of the flat. The flat was owned by the Ministry of Defence.

    A service flat provided to the applicant in 2003 7 .

It appears from the case file that while, according to the ownership documents, both flats were registered in the second applicant’s name, they were marital properties.

In November and December 1989 the applicant’s neighbours were renovating an attic over the applicant’s flat and partly removed the roof.

Being stationed in Sarajevo, they were allocated military flats there. They did not buy those flats but held an occupancy right on them (see Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos.

The court held however that the second report breached both section 15(2) of the Coroners Law and the order for immediate burial of the body.

from participating in the denationalisation proceedings regarding that same flat. 30 .

    The Flats Management Act 1964, which was in force until 1   January   1992, entitled public authorities to decide on the right of use of flats.

the flat”.

They submitted that archival records dating back to at least 1910 indicated that the disputed premises had been designated as the “caretaker’s flat”.

She also stated not to know when the applicant left the flat himself and informed the court that she and the applicant had parallel pending proceedings as to who was the holder of the tenancy of the flat

    Background to the case The applicant was a co-owner of a block of flats on the island of Vir.

    The rights of both the allocation right holders (public bodies which nominally controlled the flats) and the occupancy right holders were regulated by law (the Housing Act 1984, which is