CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 66 July 2004 Blečić v. Croatia - 59532/00 Judgment 29.7.2004 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for home Termination of special protected tenancy of a flat on account of absence during armed conflict: no violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 15 December 2004] Facts : The applicant was the holder of a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Zadar, Croatia. In June 1991, she left the flat to visit her daughter abroad. Before leaving, she made appropriate arrangements for its maintenance in her absence. The time during which the applicant was away coincided with intensified armed conflict in the region and constant shelling of Zadar. Upon her return, in May 1992, the applicant attempted to recover the flat, but in the meantime the municipal authorities had brought an action for the termination of her tenancy on grounds of an unjustified absence of more than six months. Moreover, a family of displaced persons had moved into the apartment. The applicant alleged that she had been unable to return earlier given the war conditions in the area, her poor health to travel and also because the authorities had stopped paying her pension in October 1991. The first instance court found that the applicant’s absence had not been justified by the war or by any of the other reasons advanced by her. It thus granted the municipal authority’s claim and terminated the applicant’s special protected tenancy. The judgment was quashed in appeal proceedings, but subsequently upheld by both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. Law : Article 8 – The applicant had lived continuously in the flat since 1953. When she visited her daughter abroad she had left all her furniture and personal belongings in the flat and had not intended abandoning it. In such circumstances, the flat could be regarded as the applicant’s home for the purposes of this provision and the termination of her specially protected tenancy by the courts had constituted an interference. Such an interference had a basis in domestic law and pursued a legitimate social policy aim, namely the satisfaction of the housing needs of citizens. As to whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court was satisfied that the contested decisions of the domestic courts had been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and, recalling the wide margin of appreciation afforded to authorities in implementing social and economic policies, found that the decisions had remained within that margin. Even if alternative solutions might have been used by the authorities, for instance, the mere temporary allocation of the flat to another person, this did not per se render the termination of the tenancy unjustified. Such an interpretation would amount to reading a test of strict necessity into Article 8, which was not warranted in the circumstances. Moreover, as the applicant had been able to present her arguments both orally and in writing throughout the proceedings, the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 had been complied with. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes