Home | Davalac stana | Sukob interesa | Autori ovih tekstova | The fallacy of the ECHR | Zabluda Europskog suda | Treba izmijeniti zakon | Pismo SUSH-a ECHR-u | Lawyer's statement - English | Ugovor sa vlasnicom | Ugovor sa SIZ-om stanovanja
The fallacy of the ECHR


      The meaning of "stanarsko pravo".  - About 1990 to 2000 it was usual to translate "stanarsko pravo" as "tenant's right", "tenancy right", "tenantship right", etc.  On the OSCE Mission's web-pages one could read "tenancy/occupancy right".  In the Annex G of the international Agreement on Succession Issues it is called "dwelling right".  

      "Stanarsko pravo" was a permanent, forever-inheritable property, and it was NOT a tenancy or a lease or "najam".   "Stanarsko pravo" comprised the rights to possess an apartment (flat) forever, to use it, etc. 

      In the Law on Housing Relations (in former Yugoslavia, SFRY) an owner (holder) of "stanarsko pravo" was briefly called "stanar" (meaning "dweller" or a person who lives in an apartment or flat) which was often translated as "tenant" (although the latter may be misleading). "Stanar" (or "tenant", or "dweller") was NOT a "lessee" (or "najmoprimac").  In other words, "stanar" was NOT a tenant in the sense of a lessee!  "Tenant's right" must not be confused with a tenancy or a lease!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------





      In my application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) I wrote that I had had a "tenant's right" i.e. stanarsko pravo (i.e. "dwelling right "or "occupancy right"), and that my mother had previously had this right too, but the Court untruthfully wrote in its decision that I had been a "lessee" (i.e. "najmoprimac")  with a "lease contract" (etc.). Moreover the Court falsely wrote that I had myself(!) given that information in my application! (See below * !). The incorrectness (falsification) is obvious, because the Court should have cited truthfully what I had written, and thereafter it might present its own (wrong) opinion too.

      That had to be corrected long ago, after I had repeatedly alerted the Court and others, but it has not been corrected !!!   If it were supposed that the Court did not understand, or does not understand, its fallacy and mistake, why has it not corrected at least the year of my-mother's death (which is 1982 and not 1987)?   (That is not unimportant, because in 1985 a new version of the Law on Housing Relations came into effect, whereby the manner of acquiring occupancy rights was somewhat changed.   -   See below: 1985. !).   What follows from everything that has been said above, if not a conclusion that the mistake has not been accidental or unintentional? .....  




OF THE  PAGE  "Zabluda Europskog suda"). 





. .


.  .  .