CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 6 May 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 11212/23 Zorka ĐORĐEVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 6 March 2023 communicated on 15 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s flat located very close to a building which was built subsequently, but in such a way as to allegedly make it impossible for her to use the flat normally – primarily in terms of the lack of natural light and ventilation. The construction of the new building, according to the applicant, also resulted in a significant decrease in the market value of her flat. Having first ruled in her favour, the national courts ultimately decided to dismiss the applicant’s compensation claims brought against the relevant municipal authorities and the investor company. In so doing they noted, inter   alia , that the new building had been constructed on the basis of a valid building permit and that, in any event, the reduction in the market value of the applicant’s real estate had not been significant, particularly in the context of living in an urban environment. In view of the above and with reference to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains of a violation of the right to respect for her home and her private/family life, a breach of her property rights, and the lack of an adequate response by the Serbian judiciary, including in terms of the reasons given in their judgments rendered against her.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home and/or her private life in the present case, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, particularly bearing in mind the margin of appreciation afforded to States in the context of urban planning (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Udovičić v. Croatia , no. 27310/09, §§ 136-138, 24 April 2014, with further references, and Connors v. the United Kingdom , no. 66746/01, §   82, 27 May 2004; see also, mutatis mutandis and in so far as it concerns Article   8 of the Convention and the construction of new buildings, Sofia Kyrtatou &   Nikos Kyrtatos v. Greece (dec.), no. 41666/98, 13   September 2001)?   2.     Has there been in the present case a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, particularly bearing in mind the margin of appreciation afforded to States in the context of urban planning (see, for example, Ivan Atanasov v.   Bulgaria , no. 12853/03, § 83, 2 December 2010, with further general references; see also   KIPS DOO and Drekalović v. Montenegro , no. 28766/06, § 128, 26 June 2018, and Dabić v. Croatia , no. 49001/14, §§ 51 and 52, 18   March 2021, with further references )?