FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF OMERAGIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 44804/22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
4 November 2025
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Omeragić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Giorgi Badashvili, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 44804/22) against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 September 2022 by a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms Vesna Omeragić (“the applicant”), who was born in 1955, lives in Sarajevo and was represented by Vaša Prava, a local non-governmental organisation;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of a final decision recognising the applicant’s property title to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”), represented by their Acting Agent, Mr B. Bajić, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the non-enforcement of a final and enforceable decision in the applicant’s favour and mainly raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2. In March 2004, the applicant submitted a request to the Brod Municipality for the allocation of a suitable replacement flat, in lieu of the one over which she held occupancy rights and which had been destroyed in the 1992-95 war in the respondent State. The surface area of the applicant’s flat was 53 square meters. 3. On 18 November 2011 the Brod Municipality determined that the applicant was entitled, under the Privatisation of Flats Act 2000, to be allocated a suitable replacement flat. That decision further referred to the Municipality’s Decision on Compensation of 2006 which stipulated that, if no suitable flat was available, appropriate monetary compensation should be provided. The amount of compensation was to be calculated on the basis of the average market value of real property in Brod, taking into account location, surface area and depreciation rate. 4. The decision of 18 November 2011 became final and enforceable on 19 December 2011. However, the applicant’s enforcement request was rejected due to the lack of available housing units. On 26 October 2016 and 8 June 2022 the Constitutional Court dismissed her subsequent constitutional appeals, challenging the prolonged non-enforcement, as manifestly ill-founded. The court held that, although the period of non-enforcement had lasted somewhat longer than usual, it was justified for objective reasons – a shortage of funds and housing units. 5. The right to a replacement flat for occupancy right holders, whose flats had been destroyed during the war, was initially envisaged in section 56 of the Privatisation of Flats Act 2000. Although that Act was replaced in 2011 by a new Privatisation of Flats Act, the obligation originally set out in section 56 remained unchanged. However, the statutory deadline for compliance with this obligation has been extended several times. Most recently, in 2020, it was extended until 30 June 2025. 6. In 2018, the Regulation on Allocation of Flats was adopted. It sets out the procedure for allocating municipal flats to eligible tenants. Section 3 of the Regulation reaffirms the right established in section 56 of the Privatisation of Flats Act 2011 (see paragraph 5 above) and states that flats are to be allocated in chronological order, based on when allocation requests were submitted to the relevant municipality.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation