ZAGREB, May 3 (Hina) - The Constitutional Court on Wednesday declared as unconstitutional provisions of the Law on the Status of Expelled Persons and Refugees discontinuing the eviction of expelled persons. Although those provisions
have been abolished by changes to the Law, the Court used its powers to complete the procedure aimed at establishing whether they are in line with the Constitution. The provisions, which have been abolished and declared unconstitutional, refer to a ban on evicting expelled persons from the houses and flats which they had been granted by May 1995, until they are able to return to their homes or are provided with alternative accommodation. In 1997 the provisions were contested by the Ombudsman and the Civic Committee for Human Rights, who judged that they were violating the constitutional right to property, equality under the law, and the inviolability of one's own home. In resolv
ZAGREB, May 3 (Hina) - The Constitutional Court on Wednesday
declared as unconstitutional provisions of the Law on the Status of
Expelled Persons and Refugees discontinuing the eviction of
expelled persons.
Although those provisions have been abolished by changes to the
Law, the Court used its powers to complete the procedure aimed at
establishing whether they are in line with the Constitution.
The provisions, which have been abolished and declared
unconstitutional, refer to a ban on evicting expelled persons from
the houses and flats which they had been granted by May 1995, until
they are able to return to their homes or are provided with
alternative accommodation.
In 1997 the provisions were contested by the Ombudsman and the Civic
Committee for Human Rights, who judged that they were violating the
constitutional right to property, equality under the law, and the
inviolability of one's own home.
In resolving this issue, the Constitutional Court sought the
opinion of international experts, i.e. the Council of Europe's
Venice Commission, which judged that the purpose of the contested
provisions was legitimate, however, they violated the rights of the
owners in whose homes refugees were accommodated.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the rights of owners had been
violated because they received no compensation for the use of their
property by other persons nor was there a deadline by when the
expelled were allowed to use other persons' homes. The Court also
ruled that the contested provisions violated the principle of the
rule of law and equality under the law.
(hina) jn rml