CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDF4C2976 { width:157.2pt; display:inline-block } Communicated on 20 June 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33902/08 Radmila ILIĆ against Serbia and 9 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE These applications concern the alleged death of the applicants’ new-born children between 1974 and 2007 in State-run hospitals, and the applicants’ belief or suspicion that they are or may yet be alive, having unlawfully been given up for adoption (see Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08, ECHR   2013). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos.   33902/08, 33273/17 and 15922/19, exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could an appeal provided for under Article 170 of the Serbian Constitution ( ustavna žalba ), in a case such as theirs, be considered effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vinčić and Others v. Serbia , no. 44698/06 and others, § 51, 1 December 2009, and Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08, § 63, ECHR 2013)? The Government are invited to submit any and all Constitutional Court case-law in this respect. 2.     Have the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos.   33902/08 and 34039/10, complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has this requirement been satisfied since these applications were introduced between three and nine years after 28 December 2010, while bearing also in mind that the Article 46 deadline, as imposed by the Court in its Zorica Jovanović judgment, itself only expired on 9 September 2014 (cited above, §§ 52-57 and 92)? 3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, respectively, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Zorica Jovanović , cited above, §§ 68-75)? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8, respectively, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant   Represented by 1 33902/08 Ilić v. Serbia 01/07/2008 Radmila ILIĆ   2 34039/10 Bukvički v. Serbia 14/04/2010 Svetlana BUKVIČKI   3 80191/13 Agatonović v. Serbia 06/12/2013 Živan AGATONOVIĆ   Milka AGATONOVIĆ   4 35951/14 Kovačević v. Serbia 08/05/2014 Mileta KOVAČEVIĆ   Dragana KOVAČEVIĆ Živan AGATONOVIĆ 5 63804/14 Mikić v. Serbia 10/09/2014 Lazar MIKIĆ Živan AGATONOVIĆ 6 70619/14 Jurišić v. Serbia 24/12/2014 Milanka JURIŠIĆ Dragica GOVEDARICA 7 9864/15 Savković v. Serbia 09/02/2015 Radina SAVKOVIĆ   Miroljub SAVKOVIĆ Živan AGATONOVIĆ 8 50472/16 Burojević v. Serbia 16/08/2016 Jasmina BUROJEVIĆ   9 33273/17 Ilić v. Serbia 25/04/2017 Dragan ILIĆ Blaža MENKOVIĆ 10 15922/19 Savković v. Serbia 05/03/2019 Mirjana SAVKOVIĆ         APPENDIX