Stefanovic and Bankovic against Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 15. October 2024. years brought, and 5. November announced the verdict in the case in the same year Stefanovic and Bankovic against Serbia, No.. 21784/16 and 21826/16.

The verdict is doneo The three-member committee.

Circumstances Case

Stefanović case against Serbia

The applicant is 2007. year wounded by firearms in the Pannonian Bank's branch ad Novi Sad while two young men tried to rob the branch. According to the legal judgments against two executors, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the legal successor ("Banca Intesa" ad Novi Sad), claiming that the bank is responsible for the intangible damage he suffered.

The Basic Court in Novi Sad has partially adopted the Applicant's claim, but upon appeal, the defendant Court of Appeals in Novi Sad was abolished and returned the case for a retrial.

In repeated proceedings, the Basic Court in Novi Sad was judgment P. 8429/2011 from 29. March 2012. Again he decided in favor of the applicant, and acting in accordance with the orders of the Second Instance. This verdict was confirmed by the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad, Judgment of GK. 2343/2012 from 13. June 2012. years.

"Banca Intesa" submitted a constitutional complaint against the first-instance and second instance judgment, which she asked the Constitutional Court to annul these verdicts and determine the violation of the right to a fair trial.

The Constitutional Court is 23. April 2015 brought a decisionUž. 5988/2012 which adopted the constitutional complaint, annulled the said Judgment of the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad and determined that the same court  decide on subject appeal again.

After the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeals in Novi Sad was, without opening the main hearing, the Judgment of GŽ. 1384/2015 adopted the complaint of the defendant and reversed the first instance verdict by rejecting the claim and obliged the prosecutor (here the applicant) to comply with the costs of the proceedings.

Bankovic Case against Serbia

The ancestors received in 1959. The right to use a parcel of nationalized underdeveloped construction land, but these right did not appeal to the real estate cadastre, and the title of right remained unchanged, and in his place later he took a successor.

The applicant was in 2008. initiated civil proceedings against the successor of the original title of land and against the Republic of Serbia, seeking recognition of own law to use land.

The successor of the original title of law became the owner of Land 2009 in accordance with the Law on Planning and Construction.

The first Basic Court in Belgrade is 20. June 2012. passed the verdict P. 10945/2011 who refused the applicant's claim. The Court of Appeals in Belgrade is 29. November 2012. Doned the Judgment of GZ. 7936/12, which has been reversed that the applicant has acquired the right to use its legal predecessors, which are defendant to recognize and suffer, and that the applicant can be enrolled as the bearer of the rights of use in public books on the parcel of public. Consequently, the Republic Geodetic Institute has allowed the enrollment of the right to use, as well as the conversion of the right to use the right to the applicant.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the civil proceedings, the other persons submitted a constitutional court against the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Belgrade.

The Constitutional Court is by decisionUK-1453/2013 From 10. December 2015. found that a violation of the right to a fair trial on the damage to the other person, and annulled the second instance verdict  and ordered the Court of Appeals in Belgrade to make a new decision on the appeal against the first instance verdict. The Constitutional Court did not inform the applicant about this procedure.

Conducting the Order of the Constitutional Court from Decision of 10. December 2015. The Court of Appeals in Belgrade brought a new Judgment of GZ. 1599/16 from 2. February 2017. year, which refused the applicant's appeal and confirmed the Judgment of the First Basic Court in Belgrade P. 10945/2011 of 20. June 2012

The applicant submitted a constitutional complaint that the Constitutional Court rejected 30. November 2021. years.

Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures

The applicants complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Of the Convention, as the establishment of the Constitutional Court on the Constitutional Appeals, which have been recognized by certain rights, others without the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and protect their own legal interests.

The Republic of Serbia claimed that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are observed as a single-sided procedure, and that such as such does not be subject to ensuring the principle of weapons equality. It also indicated the lack of provisions of domestic legislation that would require the Constitutional Court of Constitutional Complaints to inform the person who refers to a refutative legal act, as well as the lack of such practices of the Constitutional Court.

Decision Court

The Court took the position that the absence of the practice or provision of domestic legislation that would establish an obligation to constitute a submitted constitutional complaint in such cases, does not make this practice aligned with the standards of the Convention.

Consequently, the Court determined a violation of Article 6. Paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)

The Court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of 1,000.00 euros in the name of intangible damage compensation.