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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 27 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 72763/14 Nada MEDICA against Croatia lodged on 12 November 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns refusal by the domestic authorities to conclude a lease-of-flat contract with the applicant in respect of premises in which she had been living since 1978. In 1978 the applicant was awarded certain premises in Lovran as temporary accommodation by the hotel where she had been working. In 2011 the applicant brought a civil action against the hotel and the owners of the land on which the premises were built. She argued that the premises constituted a flat and that she had acquired a specially protected tenancy of it. She sought judgment in lieu of lease contract stipulating protected rent. In so doing she relied on the Lease of Flats Act which abolished the legal concept of the specially protected tenancy and provided that the holders of such tenancies were to become “protected lessees” ( zaštićeni najmoprimci ). Such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures, such as the payment of protected rent ( zaštićena najamnina ), the amount of which is set by the Government and is significantly lower than the market rent. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s action finding that she was not entitled to protected lease because she had never acquired specially protected tenancy in respect of the premises in question. In particular, under the housing legislation in force in the period between 1974 and 1996 such tenancy could not have been acquired in respect of premises given for temporary accommodation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, did the domestic courts carry out a proportionality test in the applicant’s case?   3.     If the domestic courts did not carry out a proportionality test, was there a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Ćosić v. Croatia , no.   28261/06, 15 January 2009; Bjedov v. Croatia , no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012, and Brežec v. Croatia , no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013)?