CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2022

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .s693B3CF2 { width:28.5pt } .s254CDAA6 { width:70.85pt } .sE3445439 { width:105.95pt } .s26507CD6 { width:70.9pt } .sF72C4443 { width:120.45pt } .sA349D7B5 { width:7.1pt } .s59A2B9D3 { width:113.7pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 28 November 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 20641/20 Abdurahim SELIMI against Serbia and 16 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE These applications concern the suspension of pensions paid by the Serbian Pension Fund to applicants whose entitlements had been granted/paid by this fund’s branch office in Kosovo [1] before Kosovo’s placement under international administration in 1999. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicants complain about the length of the related and still ongoing administrative and judicial review proceedings. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 they also complain about not being paid or fully paid their pensions since 1999, as well as the continuing absence of effective redress domestically. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicants respectively, in connection with their complaints about the length of proceedings raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, still claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article   34 given the decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court in this respect (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-107, ECHR   2006-V)? 2.     Have the applicants respectively, regarding their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could a separate civil claim for damages, administrative and judicial review proceedings or a constitutional appeal be considered effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and in the specific circumstances of the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 61, 25 March 2014; Grudić v. Serbia , no. 31925/08, § 48, 17 April 2012; Skenderi and   Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15090/08, §§   7-22, 68-70, 100 and 109, 4 July 2017; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III; Jasinskis v. Latvia , no. 45744/08, §§ 50, 53 and 54, 21   December 2010; and Story and Others v. Malta , nos. 56854/13 and 2   others, § 80, 29 October 2015)? 3.     Was the length of the respective pensions-related administrative and judicial review proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Živaljević v. Montenegro , no. 17229/04, §§ 72-78, 8 March 2011)? 4.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was there a breach of this provision in that the respondent State had first suspended the payment of the applicants’ pensions, respectively, and then did not afford them “a reasonable opportunity of putting” their claims “to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging” this interference (see Grudić and Others , §§ 77-83, cited above; Skenderi and Others , §§ 92-101, cited above; and Jokela v.   Finland , no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV, with further references)? Lastly, in this context, have the domestic authorities taken into account the relevant pensions-related regulations adopted in Kosovo? APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 20641/20 Selimi v. Serbia 22/04/2020 Abdurahim SELIMI 1939 Gnjilane Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 2. 20645/20 Drešaj v. Serbia 16/04/2020 Smajl DREŠAJ 1943 Pristina Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 3. 28335/20 Šalja v. Serbia 05/06/2020 Avdi ŠALJA 1938 Pec Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 4. 28645/20 Gaši v. Serbia 30/06/2020 Ramadan GAŠI 1940 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 5. 31135/20 Imeri v. Serbia 02/07/2020 Hasan IMERI 1933 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 6. 31194/20 Baša v. Serbia 08/07/2020 Špresa BAŠA 1941 Peć Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 7. 31718/20 Kicaj v. Serbia 15/06/2020 Murselj KICAJ 1941 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 8. 36062/20 Mulabazi v. Serbia 10/08/2020 Haki MULABAZI 1944 Orahovac Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 9. 42874/20 Kačaniku v. Serbia 14/08/2020 Đulizar KAČANIKU 1944 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 10. 44401/20 Foki v. Serbia 22/09/2020 Refki FOKI 1934 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 11. 45205/20 Rama v. Serbia 18/09/2020 Aćif RAMA 1938 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 12. 45259/20 Šukri v. Serbia 29/09/2020 Ismet ŠUKRI 1941 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 13. 48685/20 Ljaljoši v. Serbia 29/10/2020 Šemsidin LJALJOŠI 1943 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 14. 55149/20 Šalja v. Serbia 04/12/2020 Maljuš ŠALJA 1934 Orahovac Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 15. 17287/21 Karjagdiu v. Serbia 25/03/2021 Nazlji KARJAGDIU 1943 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 16. 22489/21 Baša v. Serbia 21/04/2021 Ramadan BAŠA 1935 Peć Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 17. 37387/21 Gaši v. Serbia 30/06/2021 Đimšit GAŠI 1945 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ   [1] All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.