CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1A79EE06 { width:116.52%; border-collapse:collapse } .s5323E288 { width:13.26%; 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 } .s41C60A5F { width:27.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8AFD38F3 { width:19.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s899CE26F { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF477D8B0 { width:24.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5A04E78A { height:18.9pt } .sAA30D3C2 { width:13.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6D1DA23A { width:27.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6B0B114 { width:19.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF94473E2 { width:15.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD94FAA3B { width:24.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 19 July 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19933/17 Dragan MATOVIĆ and Dragiša MATOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 4 March 2017 communicated on 2 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants maintain, inter alia , that they were entitled to a specified amount of State-funded compensation for the damage caused to their buildings as a consequence of widespread landslides in Serbia at the material time. This compensation was to be secured by the central Government and then paid by the local authorities. Moreover, the former provided the funds in question but the latter never transferred those funds to the applicants personally. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, that they have been victims of a violation of their property rights and that there was no effective domestic remedy at their disposal.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, should their civil claim have been directed against the central Government and/or the City of Čačak? 2.     Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applicable in the present case? In particular, did the applicants have a “legitimate expectation” that they would be payed the compensation in question? 3.     Should Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 be deemed applicable, has there been a violation of this provision? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 5.     The respondent Government are, lastly, invited to submit all of the decisions, reports, documents and regulations referred to on pages 9-12 of the judgment rendered by the Čačak Court of First Instance ( Osnovni sud u Čačku ) on 2   June 2014.   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Dragan MATOVIĆ 1967 Serbian Čačak 2. Dragiša MATOVIĆ 1958 Serbian Čačak