CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 }   Published on 3 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 62444/10 Zoran VLAHOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 15 October 2010 communicated on 14 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the non-enforcement of a final court judgment issued in favour of the applicant on 26   February 2010, and two decisions of Communal Police of 29 and 30   March 2010 respectively. In November 2016 the Court struck the case out of its list of cases given the Government’s undertaking to compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary damage suffered and to ensure the said enforcement. As the applicant complains that the said judgment and decisions remain unenforced to date the case was restored to the Court’s list of cases on 19 November 2020. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the final court judgment of 26   February 2010 and the Communal Police decisions of 29 and 30 March 2010 ever been enforced? If not, does the said non-enforcement amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are also invited to inform the Court if the Constitutional Court has ruled on the applicant’s constitutional appeal lodged in that regard on 26 May 2017, and if so, to submit the Constitutional Court’s decision.   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   3.     The Government are further invited to inform the Court if the land at issue (plots nos. 1084/4 and 1084/10) has ever been expropriated and/or has the applicant ever been compensated for it? The Government are invited to submit all the decisions that have been issued in that regard after 29 May 2015, if any.