Nafija Sinanović v. Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 25. Marta 2025. brought, and 2. May announced the decision in case of the same year Nafija Sinanović v. Serbia, No. 44957/17.

The decision is doneo The three-member committee.

Circumstances Case

The legal predecessor of the applicant was the owner of the land exempted from the estimates of October 22, 1980. years in order to regulate the Vidrjenjak river.

The applicant's predecessor is 24. August 2004. year for partial annulment of solutions on land exceptional decisions, given that the part of the country in question was not detended in accordance with the urban plan - regulating the Vidrjenjak river regulation. The request was submitted in accordance with the current Law on Planning and Construction, which can be revoked when the land was not detained, while it is not clarified what should happen in cases when only part of the land is used for the specified purpose.

Incoverability of laws in terms of situations where part of the land is not used intended to be intended for the development of case law. First, the Supreme Court in its decision of 22. December 2005. It took partial annulment of the solution to the exception of the land is possible in the utterance of the solution and that the remaining land does not form an integral part of the land complex needed for its purpose. This position was further concretized by the Administrative Court, recognizing the possibility of a partial annullation when part of the land that was not detained makes a special and recognizable entity recorded in the real estate cadastre.

The application of the applicant, after several returns for re-decision, rejected 20. November 2012. years. The Administrative Court confirmed this decision 23. July 2015 years. Constitutional courtis24. November 2016. year, the constitutional complaint was rejected by the applicant.

After that, the municipality of Tutin, which landed due to the exemption, launched the procedure of division / parculation of land, and shortly subsequently sold the newly formed parcel to the third person.

Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures

The applicant submitted to the court 12. June 2017. years.

Referring to the right to property referred to in Article 1. With the Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), the applicant is imposed that the excessive burden that was impossible because the procedure for division / parcelation is impossible Land, as a necessary precondition for partial annulment of solutions on the exception of the applicant, could initially initiate the owner or holder of the right of use, which was the municipality of Tutin at that time.

Decision Court

• Article 1 Protocol No. 1. With the Convention

The court pointed out that "property" is considered existing assets, including receivables, in relation to whom the applicant may claim that he or she has an even legitimate expectation that it will be realized, ie it will achieve effective enjoyment of property law. The Court especially pointed out that the mentioned legitimate expectation must be more specifically from the mere hope and based on a legal provision or legal act such as a court decision.

The Court further recognized that domestic court practice had formulated the conditions under which there may be partially annulled by a decision on the exception of construction land, and that the legitimate expectation could only be in a situation when these conditions are met.

The Court further found that the holder of the right to use in the exempt country under domestic legislation has no obligation, but only the opportunity to take division / parcelation of existing cadastral parcels. Furthermore, he also pointed out that the applicant could certainly seek a monetary compensation for exceptional land per market value without any time limit.

Accordingly, the Court found that the applicant cannot claim that she had legitimate expectations to regain the part of the exceptional land, and that the applicant's request could not be qualified as "assets" in terms of Article 1. Protocol number 1 with the Convention.

Consequently, the court characterized this complaint asratione Materiae incompatible with the provisions of the Convention in terms of Article 35. paragraph 3 (a), and rejected it in accordance with Article 35. paragraph 4. paragraph 4. Convention.

• Article 13 of the Convention

Considering that Article 13. Convention may apply only in light of one or more members of the Convention or its Protocol, which is cited by the applicant not providing claim (Arguable Claim)According to Article 1, Protocol No. 1 with the Convention, the Court rejected this complaint in accordance with Art. 35. St. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.