CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 22 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10772/19 Iskender ĆOROVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 19 February 2019 communicated on 31 March 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unlawful nationalisation of property belonging to the applicant’s late father, consisting of a plot of land and a building constructed upon it, by the former communist regime. It also concerns the subsequent proceedings which lasted for a number of years and ended in 2018 when the national authorities ruled, in the administrative, judicial review and constitutional contexts, that the applicant, despite being his late father’s legal heir, was not entitled to the restitution in kind of the property at issue. The reason given for the dismissal of the applicant’s claim was that the building had in the meantime been converted into a museum ( Muzej Ras u Novom Pazaru ) and had thus become a part of national heritage. The applicant relies on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In so doing, he complains, in particular, that the original deprivation of his late father’s property was not carried out in accordance with the law at the material time. In addition to that, the applicant complains that the decisions adopted in the subsequent administrative, judicial review and constitutional proceedings, regarding the said property’s restitution in kind, were arbitrary. In this connection, the applicant refers to, inter alia , other specified nationalised properties that were allegedly also converted into museums but were then returned to their original owners’ legal heirs in kind, as requested.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 compatible with the provisions of the said Protocol ratione temporis (see, mutatis mutandis , Foundation   King   Peter   I Karadordević v. Serbia (dec.), no. 51211/16, § 42, 6 September 2022)? 2.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did he raise, in the administrative, judicial review and constitutional proceedings, the exact complaints which he now wishes to raise before the Court? Also, in the context of the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, was a civil claim for the recognition of the applicant’s title in respect of the property at issue an effective remedy to be exhausted, considered in addition to the other remedies pursued? 3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the administrative and judicial review proceedings wherein the applicant sought restitution in kind of the property at issue? In particular, has there been divergent national case-law in this respect and has the requirement of legal certainty contained in this provision been complied with (see, for example, Tudor Tudor v. Romania , no. 21911/03, §§ 26 and 27, 24   March 2009, with further references)? 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, was the property in question ever nationalised in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? In addition to that and in view of the subsequent rejection of the applicant’s request for restitution in kind, as part of the administrative and judicial review proceedings, has the requirement of lawfulness contained in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 been satisfied, given, in particular, the applicant’s allegation of the respondent State’s inconsistent restitution practices in similar situations (see, for example, Broniowski v.   Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 151, ECHR 2004-V, and Păduraru v.   Romania , no. 63252/00, § 92, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts), with further references; see, also, Parvanov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 74787/01, § 50, 7   January 2010)? 5. The Government are invited to submit factual information, including any pertinent case-law and all other relevant documentation, regarding the property restitution proceedings involving the museums in Niš and Belgrade respectively ( Narodni muzej u Nišu and Muzej istorije Srbije u Beogradu ), as referred to by the applicant in his application.