CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 13 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14004/25 Milenko JOVANOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 7 April 2025 communicated on 24 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings related to the demolition of a building which was bought by the applicant from an earlier owner. Following administrative and judicial review proceedings, the Constitutional Court, ultimately, partly dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal based on his prior “failure to make use of” an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za preispitivanje sudske odluke ) under Article 49 of the Administrative Disputes Act. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the excessive length of the administrative, judicial review and constitutional proceedings, as well as “a violation of his right of access to the Constitutional Court” in so far as his constitutional appeal was dismissed for non-exhaustion of “prior effective domestic remedies”. The applicant further complains that there was no oral hearing before the Administrative Court in the course of the judicial review proceedings ( upravni spor ), and, lastly, that the decisions of the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court lacked proper reasoning. As regards the alleged violation of his right of access to the Constitutional Court the applicant relies also on Article 13 of the Convention.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v.   Switzerland   [GC], no.   21881/20, §§   138-146, 27 November 2023 , and Vučković and Others v.   Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§   69-70, 25   March 2014)? In particular, was an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za preispitivanje sudske odluke ), provided for under Article 49 of the Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima ), an available and effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and as regards the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 other than the one concerning the length of proceedings? 2.     Given the Constitutional Court’s decision of 26   September 2024 (Už.   7177/2022), served on the applicant on 9 December 2024, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in so far as his constitutional appeal was dismissed for non-exhaustion of “prior effective domestic remedies” (see, among other authorities, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018, and Ponomarev v. Russia , no. 7672/03, § 24, 15 May 2008)? 3.     Having regard to the reasons given by the Administrative Court (24 U. 6964/18 and 28 Ui 142/20) and the Constitutional Court (Už. 7177/2022) in their decisions of 5 July 2019, 8 April 2022 and 26 September 2024, respectively, 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 (see, for example and among other authorities, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 41394/15, §§ 100 and 101, 7 February 2023, with further references, and NDI SOPOT v. North Macedonia , no. 6035/17, § 115, 26   November 2024)? 4.     Has there been an oral hearing in the disputed judicial review proceedings ( upravni spor ) and, if not, was this in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v.   Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§187-192, 6   November 2018, and Đurić   v. Serbia , no. 24989/17, § 73-76, 6 February 2024; see also, mutatis mutandis , Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia , no. 32303/13, §   36-45, 13   March   2018)? 5. Was the length of the administrative proceedings ( upravni postupak ), the judicial review proceedings ( upravni spor ) and the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Selimi and Krasnići v. Serbia , nos. 20641/20 and 20644/20, § 201-203, 3   June 2025, and Počuča v. Croatia , no.   38550/02, § 45, 29 June 2006)?