CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 octobre 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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5CB9A4F0 { width:100.64%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; 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 } .s73F19F0 { width:18.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4EACBD { width:14.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5F419D3 { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D167EC4 { width:18.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1DAE436 { width:18.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s171269E6 { width:14.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AC405FA { width:22.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s541895FF { width:18.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s72C7619D { width:7.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7AF26AD6 { width:22.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1753EDC8 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBC42F38E { width:7.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF81C76A9 { width:22.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECAEFE96 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 3000/16 and 7189/16 Čedomir BELJIĆ against Serbia and Miroljub MILINKOVIĆ and Others against Serbia lodged on 4 January 2016 and 22 January 2016 respectively communicated on 12 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern a number of issues in the domestic legal framework and administrative practices concerning the expropriation and exhumation of gravesites, without requesting the consent of the deceased’s next of keen. In particular, upon the request of a Serbian statutory coal mining and smelting complex ( Javno preduzeće “Rudarski basen Kolubara” ) for expropriation of the settlement Vreoci and a belonging cemetery with 8,000 graves, the burial plots of the applicants’ families have been expropriated and the remains of the deceased have been transferred to another cemetery or laid in a collective burial site, without their consent and in some cases even disregarding the principle of “a peaceful rest” of remains for at least ten years. The applicants complain, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, that the irregularities during the administrative proceedings concerning the said unlawful expropriation and involuntary exhumation, without their consent and without possibility to challenge them, amounted to a denial of justice and a breach of their property rights. They also claimed that the manner in which the expropriation and exhumation had been carried, without their consent and due respect for the deceased persons, offended their spiritual beliefs and feelings.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present cases?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In   particular, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Also, were the national authorities independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Micallef v.   Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 93, ECHR 2009, and Morice v. France [GC], no.   29369/10, § 76, 23 April 2015)?   3.     Further, as regards application no. 7189/16, in the light of the applicants’ allegation that the Administrative Court applied different case-law to identical civil claims, was the principle of judicial certainty contained in Article 6 of the Convention complied with by the domestic courts (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, §   116, 29 November 2016, and Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no.   13279/05, §§ 49-58, 20 October 2011)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their 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 (see, mutatis mutandis , Drašković v.   Montenegro , no. 40597/17, 9 June 2020, and Elli Poluhas Dödsbo v.   Sweden , no. 61564/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ I)?   5.     Is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applicable in the present cases? If   affirmative, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, by the expropriation of their gravesites and exhumation of the remains of their relatives, as well as the lack of procedural guarantees in the decision-making process? If so, have the applicants been deprived of their “possessions” in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   Lastly, the Government are invited to clarify the relevant legal framework and the case-law concerning the subject matter of the cases, in particular on the level of consensus of the deceased’ next-of-kin, the procedural guarantees and the overall control of the process of expropriation and exhumations.   APPENDIX   Application no. 3000/16   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence Represented by 1. Čedomir BELJIĆ 1973 Serbian Belgrade Predrag Savić     Application no. 7189/16   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence Represented by 1. Miroljub MILINKOVIĆ 1962 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić 2. Nebojša MITROVIĆ 1970 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić 3. Gvozden MOSTIĆ 1947 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić 4. Dejan RANKOVIĆ 1976 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić 5. Ljiljana STOJANOVIĆ 1956 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić 6. Mihailo STOJANOVIĆ 1958 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić 7. Željko STOJKOVIĆ 1975 Serbian Vreoci Predrag Savić