CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 77431/17 and 677/18 Veska FAZLAGIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Emina HUKIĆ and Enes HUKIC against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 27 October 2017 and 19 December 2017 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants are the owners of the flats occupied by the protected tenants. The applications concern their inability to regain possession of their flats or charge rent for their lease. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, has an excessive individual burden been placed on the applicants as a result of the absence of the legal rules governing rent (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-VIII, and Statileo v. Croatia , no.   12027/10, 10 July 2014; see also, a contrario and mutatis mutandis , Berger-Krall and Others v. Slovenia , no. 14717/04, 12   June 2014)?