Interference with the protected scope of the right to home

Any relevant infringement upon and threat to the right to occupy the home constitutes “interference” with the right to home. The term “interference” includes deprivation of home, i.e., deprivation of the right to home or adoption of the conclusion whereby the possessor, i.e., the occupant of the home is ordered to move out.¹⁵³⁴ Furthermore, the allocation of the right to home to a third person constitutes “interference” with the right to home of the former occupant, if the courts, although not competent to act so, make a decision¹⁵³⁵ whereby the decision on allocation of the apartment¹⁵³⁶ remains in force despite its manifest unlawfulness. The interference with the right to home also occurs where the individual is prevented from repossessing his/her home¹⁵³⁷ or the repossession of the property is obviously delayed.¹⁵³⁸ In the context of fulfilment of positive obligations, there is an interference with the right to home where the courts decline their competence to decide the plaintiff’s claim and, instead of dealing with it by themselves, they instruct the plaintiff to institute administrative proceedings and establish that the defendant has the occupancy right, i.e., the right to use the apartment and thus fail to provide the judicial protection to the plaintiff in terms of issuing a legal act whereby the unlawful occupant could be evicted from the apartment.¹⁵³⁹ The decisions of the administrative authorities and courts are subject to the protection of Article 8 of the ECHR if they prevent the former occupant of the apartment from challenging the municipal authorities’ allegations taken in the minutes according to which the home was definitely abandoned,¹⁵⁴⁰ or if the administrative or judicial authorities are proving to be incapable or not willing to make it possible for the injured party to repossess his/her property, for example his/her apartment, despite the existence of an enforceable decision.¹⁵⁴¹ A typical example of such incapability or lack of will is the case when the competent police authorities refrained from giving assistance to the court officers to enforce a binding and enforceable decision.¹⁵⁴² Another typical example of such interference with this right is the search of property and persons, which otherwise may be allowed within the meaning of Article 8, paragraph 2 of the ECHR. Such search can be in accordance with the national law and the permission of the injured party has a significant role.¹⁵⁴³