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 } .s5CE19967 { width:28.55pt } .s254CD95A { width:70.45pt } .s8B39D7B5 { width:0.4pt } .s47A5D898 { width:105.9pt } .s51C73EE4 { width:77.95pt } .s5981B9D3 { width:113.4pt } .sED3A4C3E { width:115.55pt } .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. 20644/20 Bahrije KRASNIĆI against Serbia and 7 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. The applicants in these cases, however, all passed away after having lodged their applications and their spouses and/or children, respectively, intend to continue with the applications in their stead. QUESTIONS TO TE PARTIES 1.     Can the heirs of the original applicants in the present cases continue with the applications before this Court in their stead respectively (see, mutatis mutandis , Marčić and Others v. Serbia , no. 17556/05, §§ 29 and 35-40, 30   October 2007; Adamović v. Serbia , no. 41703/06, §§ 23-26, 2 October 2012; Mijanović v. Montenegro , no. 19580/06, §§ 55, 17   September 2013; and Ghavalyan v. Armenia , no. 50423/08, § 59, 22 October 2020)? 2.     Should the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, can the applicants, respectively and in connection with their complaints about the length of proceedings raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, still be considered as victims of a violation thereof 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)? 3.     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)? 4.     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)? 5.     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. 20644/20 Krasnići v.   Serbia 14/04/2020 Bahrije KRASNIĆI 1934 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 2. 22103/20 Redžepi v. Serbia 14/04/2020 Redžep REDŽEPI 1949 Berlin Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 3. 22111/20 Franca v. Serbia 27/04/2020 Smail FRANCA 1943 Peć Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 4. 22597/20 Đota v. Serbia 03/04/2020 Hajri ĐOTA 1927 Peć Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 5. 25955/20 Ašani v. Serbia 15/06/2020 Džavir AŠANI 1939 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 6. 42957/20 Krasnići v. Serbia 10/09/2020 Ljiman KRASNIĆI 1933 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 7. 14820/21 Ljecaj v. Serbia 05/03/2021 Nesibe LJECAJ 1951 Prizren Serbian Refija GARIBOVIĆ 8. 21075/21 Škoza v. Serbia 12/04/2021 Selim ŠKOZA 1938 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.