CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 27905/24 Vesna PETROVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 20 September 2024 communicated on 28 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The applicant had inherited a firearm from her late mother. Her request for a licence to possess the firearm was refused by the police, allegedly on the basis of confidential information which was never disclosed to her. By the same decision, she was required either to render the firearm inoperable, to sell it, or to surrender it to the authorities. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, contending that she was effectively deprived of her property in an arbitrary manner. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicant.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case? In particular, did the refusal of the applicant’s request for a firearm licence amount to an interference with her possessions? If so, was such interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did it strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicant (see, for example, Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland , no. 55167/11, §§ 44-58, 24 July 2012)?