CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 28 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38636/17 Petar RODIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 18 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant had a protected tenancy right since 1975 on a privately-owned flat in Sarajevo. In 2012 he was evicted following court proceedings initiated by the owner of the flat, Š.D. Subsequently, the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and rejected the eviction claim. However, the applicant’s attempt at repossession was unsuccessful as in the meantime, one day after the delivery of the Supreme Court’s judgment and on the same day that the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings, Š.D. had given the flat, under a gift agreement, to his son. The enforcement court thus held that the transfer of title made the enforcement impossible. However, the relevant provision of the Enforcement Procedure Act provides otherwise. The final decision was given by the Constitutional Court on 11 January 2017 which rejected the applicant’s appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The case raises issues under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The applicant also alleges that his inability to regain possession of the flat in question had been in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. This complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.   Were the domestic courts’ decisions contrary to Article 6 of the Convention (see Barać and Others v. Montenegro , no. 47974/06, 13   December 2011, and Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, 9 April 2013)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home under Article 8 of the Convention ( see Brežec v. Croatia, no.   7177/10, 18   July 2013)?