CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 September 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40597/17 Dragica DRAŠKOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 31 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s private and family life, as well as her access to court. She complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that the Montenegrin courts refused to examine on the merits her claim by which she sought exhumation of her husband’s remains and their transfer to their family grave in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The applicant’s husband had been buried in Montenegro in January 1995 as it was not possible to transfer him to Bosnia and Herzegovina and bury him there due to the ongoing war at the time. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was a request to the administrative body in charge of sanitary supervision ( nadležni organ uprave za poslove sanitarnog nadzora ) an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 8? The Government are invited to submit the relevant case-law in that regard. Also, once the exhumation is allowed, can it be undertaken even in cases when the owner of the grave plot concerned is explicitly opposed to the exhumation?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Was the applicant denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right of access to a court” in the determination of her civil rights and obligations (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016)?