4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Split. 5.  On 16 January 1961 the Municipal Institute for Social Insurance in Split (which later became the Croatian Pension Fund and is therefore hereinafter referred as such) awarded the applicant, as its employee, the specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo) of a socially-owned flat in Gajeva Street in Split, with a surface area of 37 square metres. 6.  On 19 April 1969 the applicant married a certain M.M. and went to live in the flat in respect of which he held a specially protected tenancy. 7.  On 2 October 1972 the Yugoslav People’s Army awarded the applicant’s husband, as a serviceman, a socially-owned flat in Šimićeva Street in Split, with a surface area of 62 square metres, with a view to satisfying the housing needs of him and his family (the applicant and their two sons, who were both less than two years old at the time). 8.  The applicant, her husband and their two sons moved into that flat some time in 1973. Pursuant to the relevant legislation (see paragraph 45 below), the applicant thereby, as her husband’s wife, automatically became a co-holder of the specially protected tenancy of the flat in question. 9.  Once the applicant moved out from the flat in Gajeva Street her brother moved in. He remained living there with his family until 1982, when he moved out. 10.  The applicant stated that in May 1982 she had moved out of the flat in Šimićeva Street and returned to the flat in Gajeva Street to live there with her elderly mother and to take care of her. She stated that she had lived there until her eviction on 16 May 2012 (see paragraph 38 below). 11.  On 22 June 1982 the applicant applied to the Croatian Pension Fund, as the provider of the flat in Gajeva Street, for permission to exchange the flats in Gajeva and Šimićeva Streets for a single, larger flat, a possibility provided for under section 49(3) of the 1974 Housing Act (see paragraph 48 below). 12.  On 30 June 1982 the Croatian Pension Fund refused its consent for the exchange of flats and ordered her to vacate the flat in Gajeva Street. It held that the applicant had been for many years using two socially-owned flats, which was contrary to the law (see paragraph 45 below). 13.  The applicant then instituted administrative proceedings before the relevant first-instance administrative authority charged with housing affairs (hereinafter “the first-instance housing authority”), applying for permission to exchange the two flats for a single, larger one (see paragraph 48 below). The Croatian Pension Fund, for its part, on 13 July 1982 instituted administrative proceedings before the same authority, seeking her eviction from the flat in Gajeva Street. The two administrative proceedings were subsequently joined. 14.  At the hearing held on 16 September 1982, the applicant stated that after her brother had moved out of the flat in Gajeva Street she had moved in with her mother who was, owing to her age, in need of care and no longer able to live alone (see paragraphs 9-10 above). 15.  By a decision of 17 December 1982, the first-instance housing authority dismissed the applicant’s application for an exchange of flats, and ordered her to vacate the flat in Gajeva Street. That authority held:
-  that she had permanently left the flat in in Gajeva Street in 1969, thereby losing her specially protected tenancy of that flat,
-  that once her brother had moved out the applicant had indeed moved back into the flat in May 1982 (see paragraphs 9-10 and 14 above) but had not thereby re-acquired the specially protected tenancy of the flat.
-  that it was therefore not possible to grant her permission for an exchange of flats because she no longer held a specially protected tenancy in respect of one of the two flats involved in the desired exchange. 16.  Following an appeal by the applicant, by a decision of 20 May 1983 the relevant second-instance administrative authority quashed the first‑instance decision and remitted the case. It held that the applicant retained the status of a holder of the specially protected tenancy of the flat in question. Instead of seeking her eviction, the first-instance housing authority should have followed the procedure stipulated for situations where a tenant held a specially protected tenancy in respect of two flats (see paragraph 48 below). That procedure provided for the possibility of exchanging the two flats for a single one if neither flat satisfied the housing needs of the tenant’s household (but would if taken together). It instructed the first-instance housing authority to examine whether the flats in Gajeva and/or Šimićeva Streets satisfied the housing needs of the applicant and her family. 17.  In the resumed proceedings, the first-instance housing authority established that the flat in Šimićeva Street had fully satisfied the applicant’s and her family’s housing needs. It therefore, by a decision of 10 October 1984, again dismissed the applicant’s application for an exchange of flats and ordered her to vacate the flat in Gajeva Street. 18.  By a decision of 1 February 1985 the second-instance administrative authority dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision of 10 October 1984. 19.  The applicant then brought an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court which, by a judgment of 6 June 1985, quashed the second-instance decision of 1 February 1985 for incomplete facts and remitted the case for fresh examination. 20.  In the resumed proceedings, the first-instance housing authority, after collecting relevant evidence and thereby completing its earlier factual findings, again held that the flat in Šimićeva Street had fully satisfied the applicant’s and her family’s housing needs. It therefore, by a decision of 6 November 1987, again dismissed the applicant’s application for an exchange of flats and ordered her to vacate the flat in Gajeva Street. 21.  By a decision of 31 May 1988 the second-instance administrative authority dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision of 6 November 1987. 22.  The applicant then again brought an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court which, by a judgment of 22 December 1988, quashed the second-instance decision of 31 May 1988. The court held that the issue of whether the flat in Šimićeva Street had fully satisfied the applicant’s and her family’s housing needs had to be determined by applying relevant military housing standards and not general housing standards, given that the flat in question had been awarded to her husband as a serviceman (see paragraph 7 above). 23.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 25 May 1992 the applicant withdrew her application for an exchange of flats, stating the passage of time and changed family circumstances as the reasons for her withdrawal. In particular, she stated that she had in the meantime divorced (see paragraph 39 below). 24.  By a decision of 1 June 1992 the first-instance housing authority discontinued the proceedings in so far as they concerned the applicant’s application for an exchange of flats. It also ordered the applicant to vacate the flat in Gajeva Street, finding that the flat in Šimićeva Street had satisfied the applicant’s and her family’s housing needs even according to the relevant military housing standards. The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that her specially protected tenancy of the flat in Gajeva Street had never been terminated and that the first-instance housing authority had not taken into account her changed circumstances – that is to say her divorce and the fact that she had not been using two flats. 25.  By a decision of 14 January 1993 the relevant ministry, as the second-instance administrative authority, dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the first-instance decision of 1 June 1992. 26.  The applicant then, for the third time, brought an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court, which dismissed it by a judgment of 26 May 1993. 27.  Following a request for the protection of legality (zahtjev za zaštitu zakonitosti) by the Principal State Attorney, on 12 July 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment and remitted the case. The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Court and the administrative authorities had wrongly applied the relevant military housing standards to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court also held that the issue of whether the flat in Šimićeva Street had satisfied the applicant’s and her family’s housing needs had to be determined having regard to the circumstances existing at the time she had moved into that flat in in 1973 and that the subsequent change in circumstances was of no relevance. 28.  In the resumed proceedings, by a decision of 6 December 1999 the first-instance housing authority again ordered the applicant to vacate the flat in Gajeva Street, finding that at the time that she had moved into the flat in Šimićeva Street the latter flat had satisfied her and her family’s housing needs, having regard to the relevant military housing standards. That authority also reiterated that the subsequent changes in her family situation were irrelevant. 29.  On 29 March 2000 the second-instance administrative authority dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the first-instance decision, which thereby became definitive and enforceable. 30.  The applicant then, for the fourth time, brought an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court, which dismissed it by a judgment of 12 June 2003. 31.  The Principal State Attorney then again lodged a request for the protection of legality. 32.  By a judgment of 16 September 2004 the Supreme Court allowed that request, quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment and remitted the case. The Supreme Court held that, because the proceedings concerned the applicant’s eviction from the flat in Gajeva Street, the issue of whether the flat in Šimićeva Street had satisfied her and her family’s housing needs had to be determined in accordance with general and not military housing standards. 33.  In the resumed proceedings, by a judgment of 12 May 2005 the Administrative Court again dismissed the applicant’s action. 34.  The applicant then, on 3 April 2006, lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of her constitutional right to fair procedure. She argued, inter alia, that the administrative and judicial authorities had not taken into account the fact that she had divorced her husband and thus had no longer needed to exchange the flats nor the fact that she had not been using two flats. She also mentioned that she had been living in the flat in Gajeva Street together with her son, D.M., and his family (his wife and daughter), as members of her household. 35.  On 13 December 2006 the Constitutional Court issued an interim measure whereby it temporarily postponed the enforcement of the first‑instance decision of 6 December 1999 (see paragraph 28 above) pending the adoption of its decision on the applicant’s constitutional complaint. 36.  By a decision of 13 July 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. 37.  Meanwhile, on 14 March 2003 the first-instance housing authority issued an enforcement order with a view to executing its decision of 6 December 1999 and evicting the applicant by force (see paragraph 28 above). 38.  The enforcement was postponed following several judicial decisions. A first attempted eviction took place on 28 November 2006 but it was agreed to postpone it, the applicant being in poor medical condition. On 16 May 2012 the applicant was evicted. The records drawn up by the enforcement officer show that the applicant was present during both the attempted eviction and the actual eviction. 39.  By a judgment of 30 March 1992 the Split Municipal Court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and her husband. 40.  On 8 May 1992 the applicant obtained a declaratory judgment by the same court whereby she was declared the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy of the flat in Gajeva Street. The judgment was rendered in the context of civil proceedings she had instituted against her husband and was based exclusively on her husband’s admission of her claim, that is, without taking any evidence. 41.  On 9 January 1996 the applicant’s former husband M.M. purchased the flat in Šimićeva Street from the State and thereby became its sole owner – a possibility open to all holders of specially protected tenancies of socially-owned flats under the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act of 1991. Beforehand, on 27 November 1995 the applicant and her husband concluded an agreement whereby they both agreed that he was the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy of that flat. 42.  It would appear that before selling the flat in Šimićeva Street to the applicant’s husband, on 13 November 1995 the Ministry of Defence, as the State authority responsible for management of the flat at the time, conducted an on-spot inspection of the flat. Enclosed with the minutes of the inspection was a statement by the tenants’ board that, along with M.M. and his two sons, a wife (that is to say the applicant) was also living in the flat as an unregistered member of the household. 43.  The Government submitted that the applicant was currently living in the flat in Šimićeva Street owned by her former husband M.M. In support of their contention they furnished a certificate of domicile which indicates that since 19 September 2012 the applicant has had her domicile registered at the address of the flat in Šimićeva Street. The certificate also indicates that before that date she had had her registered domicile at the address of the flat in Gajeva Street since 9 August 1962. 44.  The Government furnished evidence that the applicant was the co‑owner of a number of properties in the Split area, including two houses.