CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 10 July 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36168/17 Sreten STEFANOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 8 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who was born in 1916, and is thus currently 101 years old, is the owner of a flat occupied by a protected tenant. The application concerns his inability to charge adequate rent for the lease of his flat. Furthemore, before the entry into force of the Lease of Flats Act in June 2015, the applicant was not able to obtain any rent. In this connection he alleges that the domestic courts were under the obligation to apply directly the Convention and could not reject his civil action relying on the absence of domestic legislation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, has an excessive individual burden been placed on the applicant as a   result of the operation of the legal rules governing rent-control and of the absence of any such rules prior to June 2015 (date of entry into force of the Lease of Flats Act; see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-VIII, and Statileo v. Croatia , no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014; see also, a contrario and mutatis mutandis , Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia , no. 14717/04, 12   June 2014)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention arising from the domestic courts’ failure to apply the Convention to the applicant’s claim for rent for the lease of his flat?