Krsta Gigić and Milka Gigić
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 14. May 2024 brought, and 6. June 2024. published a decision in case Krsta Gigić and Milka Gigić against Serbia, No. 27722/17.
The decision isunanimouslyo The three-member committee.
Item was communicated as the Republic of Serbia asa case of influence(Impact Case).
Item refers to complaints of applicantshurt right tofair trial, to respect for private and family life, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, because their lawsuit requires compensation of intangible damage for suffered mental pain due to removal memorials of their deceased daughters with an explanation that it is not about the form of damages for which monetary compensation can be recognized according to the provisions of Article 200. Law on Obligations. This explanation was the result of the mischievously mentioned legal provision, as the right to a dignity is involved in personality dignity, and that a compensation of intangible damage may be required for its injury[1]. The court accepted a friendly settlement,ex gratia, which parties in the dispute have signed, and took the petition from their case list. |
Circumstances Case
The applicants launched the litigation to compensation against P.G. Because he damaged and removed the tombstone of their late daughter. The defendant was previously in criminal proceedings guilty of the criminal offense of a criminal injury and was imposed on parole.
By the judgment of the Basic Court in Sabacisobliged to compensate non-pecuniary damage to the applicants for the suffered mental pain due to removal memorials of their deceased Daughters pay the amount of 70,000.00 dinars, as well as to compensate the costs of the proceedings.
After the appeal of the defendant,Senior Court in Sabac changed the first-instance verdict to account for compensation for intangible damage to the mental pain due to the removal of the tombstone for which a monetary compensation under the provisions of Article 200 may be recognized. Law on Obligations ".
The applicants submitted the Constitutional Court to the Constitutional Court of the right to dignity and free development of personality, the rights to the inviolability of physical and mental integrity, the right to the fair trial and freedom of performing religious rites referred to in Article 23, 25, 32. paragraph 1. And 43 . The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, as well as the right to respect for private and family life referred to in Article 8. Of the Convention. The Constitutional Court rejected their constitutional complaint.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicants submitted the application to the Court 11. April 2017 years.
The applicants complained about violations of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6aV 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: Convention), the right to respect for private and family life referred to in Article 8. Convention and rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religions referred to in Article 9. Convention,Because the Appeal Court refused to recognize them the right to compensation of intangible damage.
Decision Court
After the parties in the procedure signed friendly alignment (Ex Gratia)which the applicants agreed togive up any further receivables against the Republic of Serbia in terms of the facts that led to the submission of this application, and the Republic of Serbia has undertaken to pay the applicants a solidarity amount of 4,500 euros (EUR), and to inform domestic courts on the conclusion of friendly settlement in this case and submit to the domestic law enforcement on the proper application of the article 200. Law on Obligations regarding the requirements for compensation of intangible damage in similar circumstances, in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention, removed the application from its list of cases.
[1] see, among other things,Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade GŽ3. 1/2018 and the verdictThe Supreme Court of Court Rev. 4687/2020