In Orlic v. Croatia the ECtHR held that an individual can establish a place as his "home" under Article even if he has no legal right to be there. In Orlic, the Claimant had purchased a flat in Croatia from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in violation of a Croatian law forbidding the transaction. The Croatian government brought successful eviction proceedings against the Claimant in domestic courts.
However, the ECtHR found that the property qualified as the Claimant's "home" under the Convention regardless of whether he had a legal right to live there. The ECtHR said that the eviction, while legal under Croatian law, violated Article 8 by failing to properly consider whether eviction was "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and thus necessary in a democratic society". This was because the Croatian Courts failed to address both the Claimant's unique circumstances and the question of whether his eviction was necessary. The ECtHR also distinguished the Claimant's case from those of squatters who intentionally reside in another's home - partially because of the turbulent nature of Croatia's recent politicial and legal history.