Prinudno iseljenje zaštićenih podstanara−praksa Ustavnog suda i Evropskog suda za ljudska prava

Abstract

Stanarsko pravo, kao specifičan institut socijalističkih društevnih odnosa, sagledava se iz bitno drugačijeg ugla nakon ustanovljavanja ustavnog uređenja zasnovanog na privatnoj svojini i tržišnoj privredi. U tom smislu, postavilo se pitanje pravnog statusa nosilaca stanarskog prava i sa njima povezanih lica u jednom novom pravnom kontekstu. Stanarsko pravo kada je zasnovano na stanu u privatnoj svojini se manifestovalo kao ograničenje svojinskih prava, ali to ograničenje je imalo svoju vremensku dimenziju. Čak je i socijalistički zakonodavac to imao u vidu kada je propisao da se posle određenog datuma više ne može zasnivati stanarsko pravo na stanu u privatnoj svojini. Nakon smrti nosioca stanarskog prava postavilo se pitanje sudbine lica koja su bila u određenoj pravno relevantnoj vezi nosiocem stanarskog prava, a koja su se u stan uselila nakon što zasnivanje stanarskog prava na stanu u privatnoj svojini više nije bilo moguće. U radu analiziramo ovu situaciju iz ugla prava na imovinu i uz ugla prava na dom, odnosno kroz stavove koje su u svojim presudama zauzimali Ustavni sud i Evropski sud za ljudska prava.

The purpose of this paper was to tackle the legal position of protected tenants and related persons in the new circumstances created by transition from socialism to democracy. Flat owners have been filing lawsuits seeking eviction of those persons in order to fully exercise their property rights. The clear and consistent position of Serbian civil courts was that no one who moved into private flat after July 29, 1973, could acquire the status of protected tenant. However, contrary to both relevant legal provisions and Serbian courts jurisprudence, Consitutional Court ruled that those persons have the right to permamently use the flat in which they moved in after July 29, 1973. Furthermore, Constituional Court stated that this ruling represented a fair balance between the right to property of the flat owner (Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereinafter: EHRC) and the right to home of protected tenant (Article 8 of EHRC). We have analyzed the position of Eureopan Court of Human Rights in respect of this issue and emphasized the criteria that need to be taken into account in establishing a fair balance between the competing interests. From the aspects of these criteria, the application of relevant provisions of EHRC by Constituional Court was clearly erroneous. Therefor, procedural mechanisms are necessary so that application of EHRC by Constitutional Court could be monitored.