CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2025

.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 24 March 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29664/24 Mihailo PANTELIĆ against Serbia lodged on 4 October 2024 communicated on 7 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns mandatory self-isolation orders issued by the relevant administrative authorities in respect of the applicant, following his return to Serbia from abroad and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020. The applicant complains, with reference to Article 5 of the Convention, that both his liberty and his freedom of movement were unlawfully restricted due to the fact that he could not leave his home for an initial period of fourteen days, having ultimately spent a total of twenty-eight days in mandatory self-isolation. The applicant maintains, in particular, that the adoption of the orders in question and the manner of their implementation were not provided for under domestic legislation at the material time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Government’s derogation from the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, deposited in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, comply with the requirements of Article   15   §§   1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, was there a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and were the measures taken strictly required by the exigencies of the situation?   2.   Is Article 5 of the Convention applicable in the present case? In particular, was the applicant’s mandatory self-isolation serious enough, in terms of its context, form, duration, level of intensity, manner of implementation and/or effect, to fall under the ambit of “deprivation of liberty” within the meaning of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention (compare to, in the context of the general lockdown introduced to address the COVID-19 pandemic, Terheş v.   Romania (dec.), no.   49933/20, §§   38-47, 13   April 2021; see also, for general standards, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§   80-91, 23 February 2017)?   3.     Should the answer to the above question be in the affirmative, has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s mandatory self-solation “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of this provision and, furthermore, did it comply with the requirements contained in Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention ( see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, §§ 79 and 80, ECHR 2010, and Enhorn v.   Sweden , no. 56529/00, § 44, ECHR 2005-I )?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, contrary to Article   2 of Protocol No.   4? In particular, was the mandatory self-isolation in accordance with the law, within the meaning of this provision (see, for example and among other authorities, De   Tommaso v.   Italy [GC], cited above §   106)?