CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .s812AA33A { width:163.2pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 33902/08 Radmila ILIĆ against Serbia and 7 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 July 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: the fACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Their personal details, the dates of introduction of their complaints before the Court, and information regarding their legal counsel, respectively, are also contained in the appendix. 2.     The Serbian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   Z.   Jadrijević Mladar. 3.     The applicants complained about the alleged death of their new born children in State-run hospitals between 1974 and 2007 and maintained that the children could in fact still be alive, having been given up for adoption unlawfully. In this connection, the applicants claimed that they were entitled to know the truth about their children’s fate. They further complained that they had had no effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances. THE LAW 4.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see, among many other authorities, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that the above complaints fall to be examined under Article   8 and Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08, §§ 43 and 78, ECHR 2013, and Mik and Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 9291/14 and 63798/14, 23 March 2021). 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court also finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 6.     Turning to the very substance of the applicants’ complaints, in Mik   and Jovanović , while addressing the same issues as the ones raised by the applicants in the present case, the Court most recently held that due to new domestic legal developments it was no longer justified to continue with the examination of the case within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. It also found no particular reasons regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which would have required its continued examination of the case under Article 37 § 1 in fine . Accordingly, the applications in question were struck out of the Court’s list of cases (see §§   43-52 of the cited decision). 7.     The Court finds no reason to depart from its conclusions in the aforementioned case and thus strikes out the applications in the present case on the same basis. 8.     This is, however, without prejudice to the Court’s power to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present or any other similar applications to its list of cases if the relevant circumstances, including any subsequent developments or indeed a lack thereof, justify such a course of action (see Mik and Jovanović , cited above, § 53). 9.     In view of the above, it is lastly not necessary for the Court to examine separately any of a number of inadmissibility objections raised by the Government in the present case (ibid., § 54). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 September 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Hasan Bakırcı   Aleš Pejchal   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 33902/08 Ilić v. Serbia 01/07/2008 Radmila ILIĆ 1965 Kragujevac Serbian Nemanja MARKOVIĆ 2. 34039/10 Bukvički v. Serbia 14/04/2010 Svetlana BUKVIČKI 1971 Mačvanski Prnjavor Serbian A11 INICIJATIVA ZA EKONOMSKA I SOCIJALNA PRAVA 3. 80191/13 Agatonović v. Serbia 06/12/2013 Živan AGATONOVIĆ 1955 Kragujevac Serbian Milka AGATONOVIĆ 1955 Kragujevac Serbian Danijel STOILKOVIĆ 4. 63804/14 Mikić v. Serbia 10/09/2014 Lazar MIKIĆ 1954 Kragujevac Serbian Danijel STOILKOVIĆ 5. 70619/14 Jurišić v. Serbia 24/12/2014 Milanka JURIŠIĆ 1965 Bogatić Serbian Dragica GOVEDARICA 6. 50472/16 Burojević v. Serbia 16/08/2016 Jasmina BUROJEVIĆ 1966 Smederevska Palanka Serbian self-represented 7. 33273/17 Ilić v. Serbia 25/04/2017 Dragan ILIĆ 1979 Lebane Serbian Blaža MENKOVIĆ 8. 15922/19 Savković v. Serbia 05/03/2019 Mirjana SAVKOVIĆ 1954 Belgrade Serbian Dragan JAKOVLJEVIĆ