The Rights Of A Protected Lessee From The Viewpoint Of The Constitutional Court

Regulating relations in the sphere of housing for their compliance with the Constitution, the legislator has, by the Rent Act, replaced tenant’s right of tenancy, under certain conditions, to lease. Since the alignment of housing legislation implemented during the transition period of transformation of social property and privatization, the legislator, for the owners of apartments, had kept the burden of restrictions on their property rights, the burden of protected tenants, as (inevitable) effect to protect vested rights (based on valid legal grounds) on the apartment that is not their property. The enforcement of this legal regulation had not demanded that the owners of these apartments suffer greater restrictions on their ownership than the limitations that already existed, and which consisted in impossibility to live in that apartment. However, the Rent Act in Article 19 provides for situations in which the lessor (landlord) may cancel the lease to lessee (the former person entitled to tenancy rights). Nevertheless, except for reasons of Article 19 of Rent Act, landlord may terminate the lease if he intends to settle in the apartment wether alone or with his descendants, parents or persons under special regulations to support (Article 21 and 40 of the Rent Act). Regarding to their extreme sensitivity that emerged in implementing the law on real life (dis) advantages of addressees, Article 21 Paragraph 2 and Article 40 paragraphs 1 and 2 were before the Constitutional Court in the proceedings initiated in order to assess their conformity with the Constitution. Because of established breach of Articles 3, 14 § 2, 48 paragraph 1 and 50 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Croatian Constitutional Court in decision and ruling UI-762/1996 abolished Article 21 Paragraph 2 and Article 40 § of Rent Act. In pronouncement of mentioned decision is determined that abolished Article 21 Paragraph 2 and Article 40 Paragraph 2 of Rent Act expire until six months from the date of publication of this decision. What did the legislator do after the decision of the Constitutional Court, and what followed in time to the present day - the authors suggest the analysis and presentation of the facts in the rest of the content.