ANNUAL REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule. 44 An interference of the state must achieve a "fair balance" between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. The concern to achieve this balance is reflected in the structure of Article 1 (P1-1) as a whole, including the second paragraph: there must therefore be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued.“ 45 Ombudspersons remind that an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property is only allowed if it is prescribed by law, in the public interest and necessary in a democratic society. In 2019 the Department registered 168 cases and issued six recommendations. The cases relate to impossibility to enter the change of ownership in the public registries, lack of meeting the requirements for real estate renovation, annotation of the administrative proceedings initiation in case of property disputes. Example: 46 The complainant complained of the Company ZP "Elektro Doboj" a.d. Doboj –Doboj Branch Office claiming that he addressed them with a request to remove an electric pole from his property, but they failed to make a decision in this regard by the moment of his lodging a complaint to the Ombudsman. On request of the Ombudsman the responsible party replied 47 claiming that the electric pole was relocated in presence of the complainant. In this way the complaint was resolved to the favor of the complainant. Example: 48 The complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the Republic Land Survey and Property Administration - Branch Unit Šipovo for the failure to make a decision in the repeated administrative proceedings. The Ombudsman issued its recommendation to the responsible party 49, which informed the Ombudsman 50 that the required decision was made and the recommendation of Ombudspersons implemented. Example: 51 The Ombudsman received a complaint against the Urbanism and Construction Department of the Town of Mostar in relation to their failure to repeate administrative proceedings as instructed by the Cantonal Court in Mostar in its relevant judgment. After the Ombudsman's intervention the responsible party informed that the subject proceedings were continued, and the expert team sent to the field and made a record on the status of the construction as corroborated by the complainant. In this way the case was successfully resolved. 44 S.A. Dangeville v. France (16 August 2002) Gasus Dosier und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands (23 February 1995.) Series A no. 306-B; paragraph 62 46 Ž-BL-05-673/19 47 A document of the Ombudsman no.: 3187-19-1 dated 18 October 2019 48 Ž-BL-05-130/19 49 P-249/19, dated 22 October 2019 50 A document no.: 21.54/952-334/04 dated 02 December 2019 51 Ž-MO-05-36/19 45 25