CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } Published on 15 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39182/19 Katica PASKU against Serbia lodged on 15 July 2019 communicated on 27 June 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant resides in Vršac, a town in Serbia. She is retired with a monthly income of approximately 125 euros. Pursuant to a 1995 decision of the local authorities in Vršac, all residents of that town had to pay each month 1.3% of their salaries or pensions for the purpose of modernisation of a sewage system. In 2016 the Constitutional Court declared that decision unconstitutional insofar as it concerned the pensioners (they were not subject to any taxes in Serbia). In accordance with the Constitution, the decision of the Constitutional Court entered into force on 27 February 2017 (the date of its publication in the Official Gazette) and had ex nunc (prospective) force. Starting from that date, the retired residents of Vršac have no longer paid the tax at issue. Immediately after, the applicant successfully sued the Vršac town administration to obtain reimbursement of the amounts she had paid until 27   February 2017. The judgment in her favour was eventually enforced. The town administration submitted a constitutional appeal against the said judgment and on 24 January 2019 the Constitutional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the matter to the second-instance court for re-examination. The applicant was not informed of the constitutional appeal lodged against the judgment in her favour. In the fresh proceedings, the applicant’s claim was dismissed by the domestic courts. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that, although she had had a strong interest in the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, she did not have the opportunity to participate in them since she was unaware of the proceedings. 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 the principle of equality of arms respected with regard to the fact the applicant was not notified of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see Gaspari v. Slovenia , no.   21055/03, § 53, 21 July 2009; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic , no. 61811/00, § 65, 21 June 2005; and H.A.L. v. Finland , no. 38267/97, § 45, 27 January 2004; see also Stefanović and Banković v. Serbia , (dec.) [Committee], nos. 21784/16 and   21826/16, § 18, 5 November 2024)?