CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 October 2020 Published on 16 November 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 49817/19 Darijo UJHAZI and Igor UJHAZI against Croatia lodged on 17 September 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly inadequate level of protected rent that the applicants have been entitled to receive under the domestic law for lease of their house under the protected lease scheme and their inability to recover possession and move into their house which has been subject to that scheme.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the level of protected rent that the applicants have been entitled to receive under the domestic legislation for lease of their house under the protected lease scheme in violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, having regard that they have been unable to recover possession of their house or rent it out at market conditions (see Statileo v. Croatia , no.   12027/10, 10 July 2014)?   2.     Were the domestic courts’ judgments refusing to order the protected lessee living in the applicants’ house to vacate it in violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, having regard to the level of protected rent that the applicants have been entitled to receive under the domestic legislation (see Statileo, cited above, § 143)?