CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 6 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 11514/18 Ena TRUMBIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the judgment adopted in the civil proceedings instituted by private individuals who are the owners of a two-storey flat in Split in which the applicant has been living as a protected lessee ( zaštićeni najmoprimac ). By that judgment the domestic courts established that the applicant had not been entitled to use the flat’s upper floor where the kitchen and the toilet were located, and ordered her to vacate that part of the flat. The applicant complains that the judgment in question constituted a violation of her right to respect for her home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the domestic courts required to carry out a proportionality test before ordering the applicant to vacate the upper floor of the flat in which she had been living (compare, for example, Ćosić v. Croatia , no. 28261/06, 15   January 2009; Paulić v. Croatia , no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009 and Bjedov v. Croatia , no. 42150/09, § 29 May 2012, and contrast with F.J.M.   v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76202/16, 6 November 2018)?   2.     If so, did the domestic courts carry out a proportionality test in the applicant case?   3.     If the domestic courts were required to carry out a proportionality test but did not do so, was there a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?