Ustav Republike Hrvatske u članku 3. utvrđuje nepovredivost vlasništva, kao jednu od najvećih vrednota ustavnog poretka. U članku 48. stavku 1. jamči pravo vlasništva, kao jedno od ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda te osigurava njihovu ustavnosudsku zaštitu pred Ustavnim sudom Republike Hrvatske (članak 128. Ustava). U radu se daje pregled prakse i stajališta Ustavnog suda u zaštiti ustavnog prava vlasništva od 1991. do danas, u apstraktnoj kontroli ustavnosti i zakonitosti propisa i u konkretnoj kontroli zaštite ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda. U prvom razdoblju predmetom ustavnosudske kontrole uglavnom su bili pretvorbeni propisi, odnosno njihova primjena na konkretne, pojedinačne slučajeve. U tom razdoblju Ustavni sud je zaštiti ustavnog prava vlasništva u pojedinačnim slučajevima pristupao relativno široko, pa je povredu tog ustavnog prava utvrdio čak i u slučaju smetanja posjeda i postupovnih povreda koje su učinili sudovi. Početkom 2000. Ustavni sud se priklonio restriktivnom pristupu u zaštiti ustavnog prava vlasništva, motiviran prije svega potrebom da svoje djelovanje svede u granice svoje ustavne nadležnosti (zaštitu ustavnih, a ne svih subjektivnih prava). Poticaj za takvu promjenu bilo je i znatno povećanje broja zaprimljenih ustavnih tužbi. U tom razdoblju Ustavni sud počinje sve više pozornosti pridavati i stajalištima Europskog suda za ljudska prava te počinje svoja stajališta usklađivati sa stajalištima toga suda. U posljednjem razdoblju, od 2009., počevši od odluke broj: U-IIIB-1373/2009. Ustavni sud je razradio ustavno pravo vlasništva te ustanovio tri zasebna pravila vezana uz ustavno uređenje vlasništva, po uzoru na Europski sud za ljudska prava. Istodobno, Ustavni sud je promijenio i način odlučivanja o ustavnim tužbama. Naime, zbog daljnjega povećanja broja zaprimljenih ustavnih tužbi, ali i činjenice da je među njima veliki broj onih koje ne sadrže ustavnopravno relevantne razloge, koji bi bili valjana osnova za odlučivanje Ustavnog suda, Ustavni sud takve ustavne tužbe odbacuje ne upuštajući se u ocjenu o povredi, neobrazloženih već samo brojčano naznačenih ustavnih prava.According to the Article 3 of the Republic Croatia the right to own property is inviolable as one of the highest constitutional value. The Article 48, paragraph 1, guarantees the right to property as one of the human rights and basic freedoms. The constitutional judicial protection of these rights in front of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia is secured under the Article 128 of the Constitution. The article presents an overview of practice and standings of the Constitutional Court regarding the protection of constitutional right to property since 1991 until nowadays. Two main issues are discussed: the control of constitutionality and legality of legislative acts in abstracto and the control of protection of human rights and basic freedoms in concreto. In the first research period the object of constitutional control were transitional regulations and their application in concrete, individual cases. In such cases the Constitutional Court applied the extensive interpretation of the constitutional right of ownership For example; the Court declared that the right of ownership was infringed even in case of trespassing and procedural infringements by courts. By the beginning of 2000, the Constitutional Court shifted to restrictive approach when deciding about protection of the constitutional right of ownership trying to restrict its actions within the limits of its constitutional jurisdiction (the Court in its judgements protects constitutional, but not all subjective rights). The impulse for such shifting was a significant rise of constitutional complaints lodged with the Court. In this period, the Constitutional Court began to pay more attention to the rulings of the European Court for Human Rights and to harmonise its own positions with these taken by the European Court. In the last period starting with 2009 and decision no. U-IIIB-1373/2009, the Constitutional Court has elaborated the essence of the constitutional right of ownership identifying three individual rules on constitutional regulation of ownership according to the model proposed by the European court for Human Rights. At the same time, the Constitutional Court has changed its method when deciding upon constitutional complaints. Due to the constant increase in number of constitutional complaints filed with the Court and to the fact that many of them do not contain relevant reasons from the constitutional point of view which would be a valid basis for the Constitutional Court to deliver a judgment, the Court dismisses such complaints without deciding about the infringement of constitutional rights because complaint has given no explanations on the infringement, but rather the constitutional rights have been only enumerated within it
