5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Split. 6.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s father-in-law was granted a specially protected tenancy on a flat at Teutina 1, Split. However, since that flat was derelict, in 1983 he was granted a specially protected tenancy on another flat, at Kvaternikova 1, also in Split. The same year the applicant’s father-in-law, his wife, the applicant’s husband, the applicant and their child moved into the flat in Kvaternikova street. Another child was born in 1984. 7.  The applicant’s parents-in-law renovated the first flat in Teutina street and moved back into it in 1985. The applicant, her husband and their children continued to live in the second flat in Kvaternikova street. They paid the rent and all bills. On 3 June 1991, Parliament enacted the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy. In general, the Act entitled the holder of a specially protected tenancy on a publicly owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale. 8.  In 1994 the applicant’s husband died and she continued to live in the same flat with her two children. 9.   It recognises a special category of lessees, those who were previously holders of specially protected tenancies on privately-owned flats. Such a category is, according to the Act, subject to a number of protections, such as an obligation for the owners to contract a lease for an unlimited period of time, the payment of a so called “protected rent”, the amount of which is to be prescribed by the Government, and strictly limited reasons for termination of the lease. This Act abolishes the specially protected tenancy as such. 10.  The applicant’s father-in-law died in 1998. In 2000 the applicant’s mother-in-law bought the first flat. 11.  On the basis of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, the applicant requested that the Town of Split, as the owner of the flat she occupied, conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and herself as the buyer. Since the owner declined her request, on 7 November 2000 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale.  She subsequently also sought recognition of her status of a protected lessee. On 23 November 2007 the Town of Split lodged a counter-claim, arguing that the applicant had no legal basis for occupying the flat and seeking her eviction. 12.  On 30 June 2009 the Split Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claims on the ground that she had never acquired a specially protected tenancy or any other right on that flat and therefore had no legal basis for occupying the flat. The Municipal Court accepted the counter claim and ordered the applicant’s eviction. 13.  That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Split County Court on 25 August 2010. 14.  On 19 September 2012 the Supreme court declared inadmissible an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. It found that the legal issues raised therein were not important for ensuring the uniform application of the law and equality of citizens within the meaning of section 382(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. 15.  On 8 March 2011 and 3 December 2012 the applicant lodged two constitutional complaints, whereby she argued that she had moved into the flat as a household member of her father-in-law, who had been granted a specially protected tenancy on that flat; that the case concerned an existential issue for her and that her modest income would not allow her to secure alternative accommodation; that she had been living in the flat since 1983 and paying the rent and all utility bills; and that the authorities had not asked her to leave the flat when her parents-in-law had moved to another flat and thus had accepted that she had had the right to occupy the flat in Kvaternikova street. 16.  On 28 March 2013 the applicant’s complaints were declared inadmissible as ill-founded on the ground that she had not put forward any arguments relevant for the protection of her constitutional rights.