Selimi and Krasniki v. Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 13. May 2025. brought, A 3. June of the same year posted the verdict in the case Selimi and Krasniqi v. Serbia, no. 20641/20 and 20644/20.

The verdict unanimously brought seven-member council.

Circumstances Case

Applicants are be citizens Republics Serbian with residence on territory ApObliquelyvo.First applicant,misterAbdurahim Selimi,was isuser age pensions from 1991.year,while is other applicant,mrsBahrije Krasnici,was beneficiary family pensions from 1986year.Their pensions are there were paid from sides branches Republic fund for pension and disabledly insurance on Kosovo (in further text:Rf Pio)everything to 1999year when is Kosovo placed under international administration.From then,payoff their pension is interrupted.

The first submitter - Pblossom number20641/20

After suspending pension payments in 1999, the first applicant, the Lord Abdurahim Selimi, filed in April 2013. RF drank the request for continued payment and compensation for the retarded amounts of pension. In December of the same year, the Applicant's request was rejected with an explanation that a basic pension was already paid to him in Kosovo and could not receive two pensions at the same time, in accordance with Article 119. Pension and Disability Insurance Act. After multiple cases and returns to the re-decision-making in administrative procedure and administrative dispute, RF drives from 27. July 2022. year, rejected, with an explanation that the applicant provides a basic institution in Kosovo since 2004. years, in accordance with UNMIK Regulation on Pensions In Kosovo and Metohija no. 2001/35 and 2005/20. In advance, in the solution, it was factually notable to pay RF Pio in Kosovo due to the armed conflict and undesight of the original documentation.

In the administrative dispute that the applicant initiated after this solution was rejected, his proxy was ordered to submit a pattern of power of attorney certified by the public notebook recognized by the state bodies of the Republic of Serbia. The applicant pointed out that such a condition does not exist in the relevant process legislation in the situation where, as in the case, the person represented by the Client registered lawyer dealing with lawyer. The same order of the Administrative Court was re-submitted to the applicant when he addressed that court due to the long duration of administrative proceedings.

The applicant is 26. March 2018. submitted the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Appeal in a reasonable deadline referred to in Article 32. Paragraph 1. of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the right to property referred to in Article 58 of the Constitution. By decision of the Constitutional CourtUK-3599/2018 From 9. December 2021. The Constitutional Court adopted the Constitutional Complaint of the Applicant, determining his right to the trial within a reasonable deadline, a member 32. paragraph 1. of the Constitution. Insertimal damage to the compensation of the applicant is awarded an amount of 900 euros, while the request for compensation for material damage was rejected as premature, given that the dispute procedure was not finalized.

The payment of the amount awarded to the applicant's decision was made by the Ministry of Justice 1. June 2022. years.

In April 2024. the applicant informed the attorney that the applicant passed away 5. Marta 2024. years and that the mother of the first applicant would like to continue the procedure before the Court, and that his other children were not interested. The applicant's son also stated that the request of the first applicant's wife advertisements would be submitted to his only legal successor as soon as possible. On 24. September 2024. year, the participants of the first applicant were submitted to the relevant derivative statement from the birth register, deceased and married, issued by the Provisional Institutions of Kosovo. Also, the Court was sent to the power of attorney with the signature of the applicant's wife.

Another applicant - application No. 20644/20

Another applicant, Ms. Bahrije Krasniqi received a family pension with supplementary social assistance by the Kosovo Branch of RF PIO since 1986. until February 1999. year, when the payment was discontinued. Request for continued payment of pension that submitted in March 2017, was denied by RF Pio from 26. June 2017. years with an explanation that it did not provide enough evidence that the basic pensions pay temporary institutions in Kosovo in accordance with UNMIK Regulation on Pensions In Kosovo and Metohija no. 2001/35 and 2005/20, as and cannot be able to be the user of two pensions at the same time, in accordance with Article 119. Law on Pension and Disability Insurance.

After four subsequent returns of the case for decision-making in administrative proceedings and administrative dispute, RF rejected the applicant's request, that the applicant needs a choice between a pension that pays temporary institutions in Kosovo and pensions he pays RF Pio. Investigating the subject turns out that a copy of invalid ID card was turned out, as well as that the applicant's life certificate dates 2017. years.

In the further course of the proxy who continued to lead the applicant, it turned out that the applicant was passed away in August 2021. years. RF PIO was 9. May 2022 requested the applicant's proxy to deliver  Appropriate power of attorney for representation, in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Serbia.

The administrative procedure was continued after the death of the applicant and RF drank, during 2023., twice, brought an identical solution as 2. November 2021, remaining a person who could not receive two pensions. In the administrative dispute, the participation was re-appointed that the proxy of the late applicant has already been submitted, and that the Serbian law does not require the power of attorney when it is a person who is given the power of attorney a lawyer dealing with the lawyer.

The applicant was in March 2019. submitted the Constitutional Court to the constitutional appeal, referring to violations of Article 6. Of the Convention and Article 1. Protocol number 1 with the Convention and requested compensation in the name of suffered material and intangible damage. The Constitutional Court is 20. May 2021,by decisionUK-3135/2019, determined the violation of the applicant's rights within a reasonable time, and ordered that the procedure of the subject speed up. In the name of compensation of intangible damage to another applicant, the amount of 500 euros in dinar equivalent was awarded.

The Ministry of Justice rejected the payment of the awarded amount due to the notice documentation for the payment, which refers to the successor status of the Son applicant.

In the civil proceedings, the applicant under the first basic court in Belgrade for the period from March 2016. until February 2019, RF PIO is obliged to pay the applicant's family pension in 2016. Conclusion with December 2018. Year. The appeal procedure seems to be still underway at the time of the court's judgment.

Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures

The applicants submitted the applicants to the court 14. and 22. April 2020. years.

In the application, they claimed that the suspension of pension payments, as well as the lack of effective remedies for their re-establishment, represented an injury Real to peaceful enjoyment of property from Article 1. Protocol No. 1 with the Convention. Also, they complained about the injury Rights to trial within a reasonable time referred to in Article 6. paragraph 1. Convention for excessive duration of administrative and court proceedings.

Decision Court

Preliminary questions Shared for both applications

            The death of the applicants and the continuation of the proceedings before the Court

The Court took the position that, before referencing the reproduction, he needed to have made the formal status of the persons who did not submit evidence of their successor's status in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Serbia, but as evidence filed exclusively from the parent records of temporary institutions Kosovo. 

The Court did not appreciate the government's complaint and expressed that the "lack of decision by the first applicant was formally declaring its husband is not disqualified to proceed before the court" inviting himself to the judgment Burlya et al. against Ukraine, No. 3289/10, paragraph 69, from 6. November 2018 (see paragraph 119. JudgmentsSelimi and Krasniqi).

In terms of the remarks regarding statements from parent records, the Court explicitly said that any domestic processes or specificities of the situation in Kosovo and, instead, relied on their own free assessment of all relevant evidence contained in the case file (see paragraph 145Selimi and Krasniqi).

Preliminary questions for another petition

1. The form of the application

In terms of another petition, the government pointed out the deficiencies that existed in connection with the signature of power of attorney for representation in the proceedings before the Court. Namely, the power of attorney provided by the proxy was signed by the applicant's fingerprint next to whom its son was signed. After the death of the applicant, the same son gave the power of attorney to the same proxy, but in the opinion of the Government, these two signatures are different, what the Court in response to the application was pointed out.

The Court did not accept this complaint that the government did not provide forensic proof in this regard and that the information in the case file, in the court's opinion, do not cause suspicion of the lack of attorney and its son (paragraph 128 and 129. JudgmentsSelimi and Krasniqi).

2. Abuse of the right to a single petition

The government has emphasized that the applicant did not inform domestic applicants, especially the Constitutional Court, in proceedings in the Constitutional Appeal, but the Court took the view that the deficiencies in domestic proceedings are not important for the Proceedings (paragraph 135.Selimi and Krasniqi).

• Article 1 Protocol No. 1 with the Convention 

The applicants undertaken under Article 1. Protocol number 1 with the Convention regarding the suspension of the payment of their pensions in 1999. years, the failure of the competent authorities to establish payments Pro Futuro As well as due to the alleged non-existence of an effective domestic remedy in relation to their requirements.

            Permit of the representation

1. In terms of payments of the retail amounts of pensions

On this issue, the Court took an objection to the Government regarding the irregularity of civil lawsuits in connection with the payments of the residual amounts of pensions and rejected applicants in that part, Pursuant to Article 35 st. 1. And 4. Conventions (see para. 157. And 167. judgmentsSelimi and Krasniqi).

2. In terms of continuing pension paymentsPro Futuro

In this part, applicants' petition were declared permitted (see para. 158. And 169. judgmentsSelimi and Krasniqi).

            The merits of the petition

Given all the circumstances of the case, especially the duration of administrative procedures, the Court has been ordered that the applicants had not been delivered to the applicants to make their claims to the competent authorities in order to effectively dismiss them in their rights guaranteed by Article 1. Protocol no. 1 with the Convention. The governments listed on prospects in conducting administrative procedures by the applicants, the Court assessed as partially corroborated, but did not explain this position in detail. Also, the Court reminded that the Constitutional Court himself found that the length of administrative procedures was excessive and contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (see paragraph 182. Judgments Selimi and Krasniqi).

So, In terms of applicants' requests renewal of pension payments for the future period (Pro Futuro) The court found the existence of a violation of Article 1. Protocol number 1. With the Convention.

• Article 6 paragraph 1. Convention

            Permit of the representation

The Court did not appreciate the Government's complaint regarding the victim status on the applicants' side due to the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the violation of the right to trial was determined The deadline on the applicants and that they have been assigned compensation in the amount of 900 euros in favor of the first applicant and 500 euros in favor of the second applicant. The court's awarded amounted to insufficient compensation, and the applicants' petition was admissible.

            The merits of the petition 

The Court analyzed the length of administrative procedures and administrative disputes that the applicants also took the position that the requests set in court practice were not met. Therefore, the Court found a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. of the Convention.

Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)

The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia tothe widows of the first applicant and the son of the second applicantpays the amount of per5,000 euros In the name of compensation of intangible damage and the amount of 2,000 euros in the name of the cost costs.