Božidar Savić v. Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 1. April 2025. brought, and 9. May announced the decision in the case in the same year Božidar Savić v. Serbia, No. 11789/21.
The decision is doneo The three-member committee.
Item refers to termination of contracts for lease of apartments with the applicant and order for its eviction. The Court rejected the petition for the most part due to the inexhausting of domestic remedies, and in terms of violation of the right to an effective remedy at the domestic level as obviously unfounded. |
Circumstances Case
The applicant was a faintly impaired person with 100% of physical disability. He was awarded a social apartment in 2008. year for him and his family - his wife and their three children. When the Applicant's wife left off in 2011. years, they stopped paying the rent and utility bills. The wife deceased in 2013. year, two children left the household, and the applicant and his adult child were left in the apartment.
The Housing Commission for the Mayor of the City of Belgrade is 10. October 2012. passed the decision to cancel the contract on the lease of the apartment, because he did not settle contractual obligations.
The applicant 7. November 2012. he addressed the proposal for the execution of the decision of the Belgrade Citizens' Decision, which the request was rejected with the explanation that the subject of the procedure is not an administrative matter.
Deputy Mayor is 4. December 2012. He refused the Procedure Commission of the Mayor of the City of Belgrade, against which the decision declared the constitutional court constitutional appeal, complaining of the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to respect private and family life.
The Constitutional Court is 25. March 2013. passed a decision rejected by the Constitutional Appeal to the Applicant, because the Administrative Court competent for the legality of the disputed decision is responsible. The Constitutional Court found that the applicant had the opportunity to file a lawsuit against the disputed solution, and concluded that all legal means had not been exhausted before submitting the constitutional complaint. Since the applicant was not instructed on the possibility of initiating administrative dispute, the Constitutional Court took the position that the applicant may file a lawsuit to the Administrative Court so as not to suffer the consequences.
The applicant is 19. June 2013. submitted a lawsuit to the Administrative Court, as well as the second request for disposal of the decisions concerned.
The Administrative Court is 26. June 2013. Deferred the Applicant's request for the execution of the Deputy Mayor of the City of Belgrade, assessing that a specific solution is not a final administrative act by which it is credited to the point of administrative matter.
The Applicant re-addressed the Constitutional Court, which is 29. September 2016. He rejected his constitutional complaint against the decision of the Administrative Court, given that the disputed solution wasRatione Materiae incompatible with a prominent injury to the right to a fair trial. Also, the Constitutional Court stated that the Administrative Court has not yet decided on the applicant's lawsuit.
The Administrative Court is on May 29, 2015. passed the decision of the Applicant's lawsuit, due to the impugned solution, which was not adequately explained and because the applicant was not heard before the first instance administrative authority. The case was returned to re-decision, and in that procedure was not made.
In parallel with the management of the administrative procedure, civil proceedings were also conducted in order to evict according to the lawsuit of the city of Belgrade due to non-fulfillment of contractual obligations.
The third Basic Court in Belgrade is 16. June 2014. passed the verdict to which the claim was adopted, and the applicant was obliged to move out of the object of the apartment. The Court of Appeals in Belgrade is 8. June 2017. confirmed the first instance verdict. The applicant did not submit a constitutional complaint against the said verdicts. The verdict was not made until the death of the applicant.
The applicant passed away in January 2024. years, and his son P.S. He expressed the desire to continue with the treatment of the petition.
During the proceedings, the Court sent a temporary measure during the proceedings.
In the case, the third party intervened the Roma Rights Center, which submitted their comments.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted to the Sud. 1. Marta 2021. years.
Referring to Art.3, 6. And 8. Conventions for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1. Protocol No. 1 Including the Applicant to make it impossible to enjoy its property peacefully, as well as that he had no fair trial in administrative proceedings. The applicant also complained that he had no effective domestic remedy for his complaints.
Decision Court
- Art. 3, 6. and 8. Conventions and Article 1 of the Protocol number 1. With the Convention
The Court stated that the decisions of administrative bodies to terminate the contract on the lease of the apartment in question was never executed, that they were annulled by the Administrative Court and returned to the re-decision, in which the final decisions were not adopted.
Also, the Court noted that the applicant did not submit a constitutional complaint against the court of the Court of Appeals. Brought in 8. June 2017. years. The Court indicated that the first constitutional complaint was submitted without exhausting previous legal funds (administrative dispute before the administrative court), while the other did not apply to the merits of the case, but only at the request of the applicant to postpone the execution of decisions.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the Constitutional Court had the opportunity to examine the lease of the lease of a disputed apartment with the applicant, which could determine the compliance of the controversial judgments with the Convention, which is the essence of the rules on exhausting domestic remedies.
In accordance with the above, the Court rejected the application pursuant to Article 35. st. 1. and 4. Convention due to the inexhausting effective domestic remedy - constitutional complaints.
At the same time, the Court found that the previously imposed temporary measure ceases to have any basis.
- Article 13 of the Convention
Discarding the complainant according to Art. 3, 6. and 8. Conventions and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 In the Convention, the Court also found that the complaint under Article 13. the Convention is clearly unfounded, and that it must be rejected in accordance with Article 35. Para. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.