CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s1536B7BA { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Communicated on 24 May 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16332/18 Fata ORLOVIĆ and Others against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 30 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case has attracted a wide media attention in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the region. The applicants lived in the Srebrenica municipality until the genocide. Shortly after they left, a church was built on their land. In 2000 the land was restored to the applicants under Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, but the church was not removed. In 2002 the applicants initiated civil proceedings against the Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina asking for the removal of the church from their land. While the proceedings were pending, the Republika Srpska Government and the Serbian Orthodox Church began out-of-court negotiations with the applicants concerning the removal of the church. After an agreement was reached in January 2008, the applicants changed their claim in the civil proceedings asking for the recognition of the agreement’s validity. That claim was ultimately rejected. The final decision was given by the Constitutional Court on 28 September 2017 which, by 5 votes to 4, found that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicants invoke the same provisions in the present case alleging that they are prevented from effectively enjoying their possessions because the unlawfully built church has not yet been removed from their land. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     (a) Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? (b)     If so, which of the rules of this provision is applicable in the present case? (c)     Has that interference been lawful, i.e. in accordance with national law and the quality requirements of accessibility and foreseeability flowing from the autonomous meaning given to the notion of lawfulness in the Court’s case-law? (d)     Has it been effected in a public interest and, if so, which one(s)? (e)     Has it struck a “fair balance” between any such public interest and the applicants’ personal proprietary interests; in this connection, has there been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised and have the applicants been brought to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see, mutatis mutandis , Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 134, ECHR   2004 ‑ XII)?   2.     Were the domestic courts’ decisions contrary to Article 6 of the Convention (see Barać and Others v. Montenegro , no. 47974/06, 13   December 2011, and Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, 9 April 2013)?   N o . Applicant Birth year Place of residence Nationality Represented by   Fata ORLOVIĆ 1942 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Fata AHMETOVIĆ 1969 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Zlatka BAŠIĆ 1976 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Rahima DAHALIĆ 1978 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Mirsada EHLIĆ 1973 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Murtija HODŽIĆ 1982 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Melka MEHMEDOVIĆ 1975 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Muška MEHMEDOVIĆ 1970 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Hasan ORLOVIĆ 1972 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Abdurahman ORLOVIĆ 1968 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Ejub ORLOVIĆ 1980 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Fatima ORLOVIĆ 1980 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Šaban ORLOVIĆ 1966 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin   Senija ORLOVIĆ 1974 Srebrenik Bosnia and Herzegovina   Fahrija Karkin