CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2026

.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 30 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15368/25 Goran PAJKOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 5 May 2025 communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s property rights and the domestic courts’ reasoning in that regard. In 2010 the applicant bought a plot of land from X and was registered as the owner in the relevant Real Estate Registry. After X died, Y instituted civil proceedings against the applicant claiming that he was the owner of part of the land. The courts ruled in Y’s favour, finding, inter alia , that Y had indeed bought part of the land from X in 1990 and had been registered as its owner in 1993, but that when the new Real Estate Registry had been formed for the relevant municipality during the 1990-ies, X had been registered in it as the owner again. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State, claiming compensation, relying on the legislation which provided that the State guaranteed the veracity of the registered data in the Real Estate Registry. The first-instance court ruled in his favour, finding, in substance, that it was undisputed that X had been registered again as the owner of the land by mistake and owing to an unlawful act attributable to the State, and that a failure of the Real Estate Registry had misled the applicant into believing that he had been buying the land from the real owner. The High Court quashed that judgment and ruled against the applicant finding that it had been X who had acted unconscientiously and had caused damage. On 28 November 2024 the Constitutional Court found the High Court’s reasoning acceptable and dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the domestic courts’ findings were arbitrary given the relevant legislation and that they have not protected his right to property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, have the domestic courts applied the law in the applicant’s case manifestly erroneously or so as to reach arbitrary conclusions ( see Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the alleged failure of the State to protect the applicant’s property rights (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine , no. 48553/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VII, and Bilyavska v. Ukraine , no. 84568/17, § 27, 27 March 2025, and the authorities cited therein)? In particular, was the domestic adjudication of a property dispute in accordance with domestic law and were their decisions arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Kushoglu v. Bulgaria , no.   48191/99, § 47, 10   May 2007, and Zagrebačka banka d.d. v. Croatia , no.   39544/05, § 250, 12   December 2013; see, also, Vukušić v. Croatia , no.   69735/11, § 64, 31 May 2016, and Kanevska v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   73944/11, §   48, 17   November 2020)?   3. The parties are invited to inform the Court what the effects of registering the ownership in the Real Estate Registry were and on what basis an ownership on real estate could be registered in both 1993 and 2010. The parties are also invited to submit a copy of the case file no. P.br. 870/12 (in which Y succeeded in his action against the applicant), as well as to submit information on all the changes in respect of plots of land nos. 1960/10 and   4453/1 after 1990.