Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 41306/18

The Court notes at the outset that, unlike other cases (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014, and Bego and Others v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 35444/12 and four others, 15 November 2016) concerning restrictions on landlords' rights imposed by the protected lease scheme, the applicant in the instant case complained only of her inability to evict the protected lessee and move into her flat, rather than of the inadequate level of (protected) rent.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 41306/18

In reply to similar arguments in earlier cases the Court has held that the alleged violations stemmed from the national legislation itself and that the applicants therefore could not have effectively challenged the level of protected rent or their inability to recover possession of their flats (see Statileo, cited above, §§ 96 and 165, and Skelin-Hrvoj and uricic v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 23414/15 and 52161/15, §§ 50-53, 10 June 2021).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 41306/18

Moreover, in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Kirincic and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 115, 30 July 2020).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 41306/18

The Court notes at the outset that, unlike other cases (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014, and Bego and Others v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 35444/12 and four others, 15 November 2016) concerning restrictions on landlords' rights imposed by the protected lease scheme, the applicant in the instant case complained only of her inability to evict the protected lessee and move into her flat, rather than of the inadequate level of (protected) rent.