CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 22 April 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16242/23 Pauna PRICA against Serbia lodged on 6 April 2023 communicated on 4 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the rehabilitation proceedings brought by the applicant in recent years as regards her deceased relative’s conviction and the confiscation of his property by the Yugoslav communist authorities in the aftermath of World War II. The applicant, as her relative’s entitled successor, complains, with reference to various provisions of the Convention, of the unfairness of the said rehabilitation proceedings, and in particular the decision ultimately rendered against her because of the absence, in the rehabilitation case file, of the actual judgments and files resulting in her relative’s conviction. The applicant repeatedly attempted to obtain this documentation, but to no avail. At the same time, various other documents and reports regarding her relative’s conviction, as well as the confiscation of his property, were in fact provided or obtained in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings. The applicant lastly maintains that according to the applicable Serbian legislation it was, in any event, up to the relevant national courts to obtain the judgments and files resulting in her relative’s conviction proprio motu , and that she should not therefore be the one to suffer any adverse consequences in the rehabilitation and restitution context. While the national courts apparently tried to obtain the judgments and files in question, in the end, they were not successful.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was, in the specific circumstances of the present case, the general principle of procedural fairness respected when it came to the national courts’ ultimate decision to rule against the applicant based on the absence, in the rehabilitation case file, of the actual judgments and files resulting in her relative’s conviction – which documents, according to the applicant, should, in any event, have been obtained by the national courts themselves (see, mutatis mutandis ,   McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom , 9 June 1998, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, and Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, §§ 146 and 149, 19   September 2017, with further references)?