CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } Communicated on 27 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 62949/19 Tanja KAČKOV against Croatia lodged on 28 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns deregistration of the applicant’s domicile by the domestic authorities from her registered address in Glina where she had been awarded a flat under lease agreement by the State. The decision to deregister her domicile was based on on-site inspections by the police which on two occasions had not found the applicant at her registered address. Before the domestic courts the applicant argued that she had a job in a school in Zagreb and that she had often stayed in Zagreb over night at her mother’s or her daughter’s place because of work, the need to take care of her sick mother or her own medical appointments in Zagreb hospitals. The applicant claims that because of the deregistration of her domicile she is now running the risk that her lease contract with the State in respect of the flat in Glina would be terminated.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic authorities’ decision to deregister the applicant’s domicile in Glina constitute a restriction on her freedom to choose her residence guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4, and/or an interference with her right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom to choose her residence contrary to Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4 and/or of her right to respect for her home, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?