CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s3BCCA86F { width:107.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .sC599B4FA { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s435B147E { width:20.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7A63878F { width:25.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E8C832 { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5367CA5B { width:30.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s72B5502E { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1E271D13 { width:20.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s83656319 { width:25.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s86E796D8 { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9D4DC34F { width:30.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 27 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15263/25 Predrag JOVANOVIĆ and Others against Serbia lodged on 9 May 2025 communicated on 9 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns reimbursement of legal costs arising from criminal proceedings that had been discontinued because of the death of the accused. The applicants are the children and spouse of Z.J. Following his death in 2015 the criminal proceedings for extortion against him were discontinued and it was ordered that the legal costs would be borne by the Belgrade High Court. That decision became final on 24 January 2017. On 16 March 2017 the lawyer who had represented the deceased submitted, on his behalf, a request for reimbursement of lawyer’s fees that had been paid by Z.J. That request was dismissed as unfounded and that decision became final on 7   February 2019 (a copy of this decision is not in the case file). By a decision which became final on 21 May 2018 the applicants were declared Z.J.’s heirs. In March 2019 they lodged a request for reimbursement of costs of legal representation paid by Z.J. On 5 June 2019 it was rejected as out of time under Article 262 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That provision required such claims to be submitted within one year from the date on which the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings became final. The High Court’s appeal panel quashed that decision and remitted the case for re-examination. It held that the time-limit should run from the moment when the decision declaring the applicants as heirs had become final. Following several remittals in which the first-instance and second-instance bodies maintained their interpretations of Article 262 § 2, the High Court again rejected the applicants’ request on 12 June 2020 as out of time. The appeal panel upheld that decision in full, departing from its earlier practice. The decision became final on 3 March 2022, despite the fact that the relevant part of Article 262 § 2 had in the meantime been declared unconstitutional and had ceased to be in force as of 24   March 2021. On 20 March 2025 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal as a “fourth-instance” complaint. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that because of the domestic courts interpretation of the time-limit set in Article 262 § 2, they were denied access to a court in respect of their claim for reimbursement of legal costs. They also complain under Article   6   §   1 about the reasoning of the decisions of 12 June 2020 and 3   March 2022. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the applicants have an arguable right, under domestic law, to seek reimbursement of legal costs paid by their predecessor? If so, have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, could the applicants have pursued a compensation claim against the State before the civil courts, once the contested decisions had become final, pursuant to Article 265 § 6 of the Criminal Code of Procedure or any other applicable provision? The parties are invited to substantiate their claims with reference to relevant case-law of domestic courts.   2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court? In that connection:   (a) Was the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Z.J. served on the applicants? When did they become aware of the possibility of seeking compensation? Could they have lodged their compensation claim before the decision recognising them as heirs to the deceased’s estate became final and was this possibility foreseeable from their point of view (see Zubac v.   Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 87-89, 5 April 2018)? Were the authorities under an obligation to inform the applicants of such a possibility, in order to ensure the effective enjoyment of their right of access to a court (see Schmidt v.   Latvia , no. 22493/05, §§ 86-90, 27 April 2017, and Marina Aucanada Group S.L. v. Spain , no. 7567/19, §§ 39-43, 8 November 2022)? The parties are invited substantiate their claims with reference to applicable legal provision and relevant case-law of domestic courts.   (b) Did the application of Article 262 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prevent the applicants from having their compensation claim examined on the merits (see Miragall Escolano and Others v.   Spain , nos.   38366/97 and 9 others, § 36-37, 25 January 2000, and Kurşun v.   Turkey , no.   22677/10, §§ 103-04, 30 October 2018)? Did the application of that provision by the domestic authorities, in the applicants’ situation, amount to “excessive formalism” (see Zubac , cited above, §§ 96-99)?   (c) Did the Belgrade High Court provide sufficient reasoning for its decisions, including in the decision of 3 March 2022 in which the appeal panel adopted a different position from its earlier approach?   3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Furthermore, is there any legal avenue through which they may seek the reopening of the impugned proceedings?   As the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction concerns submissions and procedural acts (including attendance at hearings and the representation of the defence) carried out by the deceased’s lawyer in the discontinued criminal proceedings, as listed in the statement of costs of 16 March 2017, they are invited to submit copies of those submissions together with the minutes of those acts. The parties are further invited to submit copies of submissions lodged and the decisions delivered in the proceedings for the reimbursement of legal costs, which were initiated pursuant to the request of 16 March 2017 lodged on behalf of the applicants’ deceased legal predecessor.   APPENDIX Application no. 15263/25     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Predrag JOVANOVIĆ 1981 Serbian Belgrade 2. Jela JOVANOVIC 1948 Serbian Belgrade 3. Kosovka TIČIĆ 1975 Serbian Belgrade