Iskender ĆOROVIĆ against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is On July 7, 2026, he made, and on August 27 of the same year, announced the decision in the caseĆorović v. Serbia, number 10772/19.
It's a decision brought three-member Board.
The case refers to the refusal of the applicant's request to return to him in kind the property that was nationalized by his late father, and which in the meantime had been repurposed and turned into museum. The applicant highlighted the violation of rights from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, considering that the initial confiscation of his late father's property was not carried out in accordance with the law that was in force in the relevant period, and that the decisions made in the subsequent administrative, administrative and constitutional court proceedings, regarding the return of the disputed property in kind, were arbitrary. In this regard, he pointed out, among other things, other specific cases of nationalized property that were also turned into museums, but were then, upon request, returned in kind to the legal heirs of the original owners. The court heard complaints related to the request for restitution in kind and the alleged arbitrariness of the decisions made in the administrative procedure and the procedure before the Administrative and Constitutional Court. in this regard, rejected as clearly unfounded, and the complaints related to the deprivation of "property without the existence of obvious public interest" due to non-exhaustion of domestic legal remedies. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant, Mr. Iskender Ćorović, (hereinafter: the applicant), submitted a request for the return in its natural form of office buildings and construction land, supported in 1959 on the basis of the law on the nationalization of rental buildings and construction land. The nationalized property was previously owned by the applicant's father.
The Agency for Restitution - Regional Unit Kragujevac rejected the request for the return of the property in its natural form with a partial decision number 46-000194/2012 of July 7, 2014, because it houses the "Ras" Museum - a cultural institution, and because this would significantly disrupt the work and functioning of the institution, and stated that the right to compensation will be decided by a separate decision. The applicant's appeal was rejected by the decision of the Ministry of Finance - Sector for Property and Legal Affairs No. 46-00-621/2014-13 dated November 7, 2014.
On September 22, 2016, the Administrative Court (Department in Kragujevac) issued judgment U. 8488/15 in which it rejected the applicant's lawsuit, supporting the legal position of the administrative authorities that in this particular case there can be no natural return, since the "Ras" Museum, an institution founded by the city of Novi Pazar, which carries out cultural and scientific activities, is located on the land whose return is requested, so the return would significantly hinder the work and functioning of the mentioned institution.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the procedure for the return of confiscated property, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court against the verdict of the Administrative Court - Department in Kragujevac, complaining of the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to property from Article 32, paragraph 1 and Article 58 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.
On October 3, 2018, by decision Už-426/2017, the Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional appeal, assessing that it is, in essence, required to once again assess the legality of the disputed verdict as an instance court.
By the decision of the Agency for Restitution - Regional Unit Kragujevac, number 46-000194/2012 of February 25, 2019, the request of the applicant and three other persons was approved and the right to compensation and the basis for compensation for the seized property were determined. According to paragraph 3 of the ruling, the amount of compensation will be determined by a special decision when the conditions for it are met in accordance with the law. On June 1, 2023, the Ministry of Finance confirmed the first instance decision. In a submission dated July 24, 2023, the applicant informed the Agency for Restitution that it "gives up further proceedings".
On January 15, 2020, the applicant filed a lawsuit to determine the ownership rights of the nationalized property to the High Court in Novi Pazar. That procedure is still ongoing.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on February 19, 2019.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, claiming that he was deprived of his property, and that there is no legal interest in confiscation, because the return of the property would not hinder the work of the museum, since the museum could perform its function in other buildings of a similar type.
He also complained about an injury to a member 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, pointing out that in other similar cases the opposite decision was made, i.e. that the property was returned to the previous owners, and that the procedure lasted from 2012 to 2018, which indicates the inactivity of domestic authorities.
Finally, the applicant complained about the violation of the prohibition of discrimination from Article 14 of the Convention due to the unequal treatment of the competent authorities in the same factual and legal situation, because, according to his statements, the building of the National Museum in Niš and the Museum of the History of Serbia in Belgrade were returned to their former owners, and they were nationalized in the same period as the applicant's property and represent a historical landmark.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court, first of all, reminded that the guarantees established by Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention imply the obligation of the courts to provide an adequate explanation of their decision, which does not imply a detailed answer to every argument. The scope of the explanation of the decision depends on the circumstances of the specific case.
Then the Court emphasized that in cases of restitution of property taken from previous owners by the former regime, the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention must not be interpreted in such a way as to impose an obligation on states to return property transferred to them before the entry into force of the Convention or limit the right of the state to determine the scope and conditions of the return of such property. On the other hand, if the state regulates by law the conditions for the return of that property or determines partial or full compensation instead of returning the property in kind, such law is considered the basis for the creation of property rights protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In the specific case, the Court assessed that the decisions of the competent authorities (the Restitution Agency, the Ministry of Finance, the Administrative Court, the Constitutional Court) were based on reasons that were consistent, relevant and sufficient, and that they were based on domestic legislation that was applied to achieve the public interest.
The court accepted the Government's claims that the museum had no alternative premises and that the museum's premises were used for their intended purpose. Regarding the claim of the applicant that the immovable property that was declared part of the cultural heritage could be returned to the previous owner while retaining the purpose, the Court pointed out that it is necessary to fulfill the conditions prescribed by the domestic law - the Law on Restitution of Confiscated Property and Compensation.
Finally, the Court took into account when making its decision the relevant data that the Government submitted to him about the restitution procedures involving public institutions - in most of those cases requests for the return of property in kind were rejected, and in only a few cases they were accepted. In the two submitted cases, restitution related to museums, and the buildings were returned in kind. However, unlike the applicant's case, that restitution did not significantly hinder the work and functioning of those museums, because the premises that were the subject of restitution were used for administrative purposes, or they housed private collections, or the institutions themselves had access to additional premises. The court noted that all those cases were considered individually and that legal criteria were applied to each of them.
Having in mind all of the above, the Court dismissed the applicant's complaints related to his request for restitution in kind based on Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Conventionrejected as obviously unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.
With regard to the applicant's complaint based on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which refers to the "deprivation of the specified property without the existence of public interest", the Court assessed that this complaintmust be rejected due to non-exhaustion of legal remedies, based on the provisions of Article 35, para. 1 and 4 of the Convention, because the civil proceedings relevant to that issue are ongoing before the domestic courts.
As the applicant did not complain before the Court regarding the compensation procedure, the Court did not even consider this issue.