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 } Published on 8 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 80294/17 Konstantin KOSTIĆ against Serbia lodged on 14 November 2017 communicated on 12 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic authorities to recognise the applicant’s right to continue paying for the lease of the gravesite where his aunt and uncle had been buried. As a consequence, their remains would be exhumed and placed in a collective burial site where public utility company lays remains of those who do not have any successors willing to continue to pay for lease of individual gravesites. The domestic courts justified their decisions by finding that the applicant did not have the right to continue to lease the said gravesite because he had not been the legal successor of the former lessee. The Constitutional Court further dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal, disregarding his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Articles 6 and   8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the reasons given by the competent civil courts, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations (see, mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v. Serbia , no.   1401/08, §§   24 and 27 in fine, 9 April 2013)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his 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)?   The Government are invited to provide information on administrative practice and the legal framework which govern the subject-matter of the case as well as the case-law of the domestic courts in this respect.