Skip to main content

Notice of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights made in November 2023 against the Republic of Serbia

European Courtfor human rights (hereinafter: the Court) is in the period from 1 to 30Novemberpublished a judgment in 2023 and 23 decisions against the Republic of Serbia

All decisions and judgments were made by a three-member Board.

JudgmentStojanović v. Serbia The court announced on November 30, 2023. With the aforementioned judgment, the Court adopted the application of the heir of the deceased. of the applicant, establishing a violation of the rights from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as a violation of Article 13 of the Convention regarding the effectiveness of the constitutional appeal in terms of the duration of the procedure before the Constitutional Court. The case concerned non-execution of domestic decisions taken against social/state enterprises. By the verdict, the Republic of Serbia is obliged to pay the applicant's heirs the amount of 1,000 euros in the name of compensation for non-material damage, the amount of 30 euros in the name of the costs of the procedure, as the amount of the recognized and unpaid claim of the deceased. of the applicant from bankruptcy proceedings.

Out of 23 decisions made, In 20 cases, the court accepted friendly settlements, in 2 cases it adopted a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, and in one case, he deleted the application from the list of cases, finding that the heirs of the applicant do not intend to participate in the proceedings.

The cases in which friendly settlements were concluded and unilateral declarations were submitted refer to issues that represent well-established judicial practice of the Court (so-calledWECL - well-established case-law), settlements were concluded and unilateral declarations were submitted in order to reduce additional costs before the Court and consequently less payments from budget funds.

All cases in which they were concludedfriendly settlements refer tonon-execution of domestic decisions taken against social/state enterprises. These are the subjects:Đedović and Petronijević; Kozomara and 13 others;Stošić i4Ph.D;Pavlović i5Ph.D;Stojković i2Ph.D;Džanković and Slavković,METALPROM DOO VALJEVO and CENTRODUST DOO SMEDEREVO;Jeremić i5Ph.D;Saturday;Milojević et al;Damnjanovic;Bajović;Venev;Pay attention;Jovanović et al;Lazic;Jovanovic;TRAIN LTD;Sorghum;Turundžić i4Ph.D. All the mentioned cases follow the practice of the Court from the judgmentLilić et al. against Serbia(No. 16857/19 and 43001/19, dated January 14, 2021) according to which the duration of bankruptcy proceedings against social or state enterprises over one year is excessive.

Two cases in which the Government submittedunilateral declaration refer to proceedings before the Constitutional Court within a reasonable period of time in constitutional appeal proceedings that lasted from 3 years and 7 months to 8 years and 5 months (Boskovic andMEDICAL SYSTEM D.O.O. BELGRADE and 2 others.

In the subjectStanisavljevic (number 47613/16), the court decided to withdraw the application in question withownsubject lists due to the absence of the intention of the daughter of the deceased. the applicant to further participate in the procedure. The case referred to the allegeduneven judicial practice of domestic courts. The applicant's attorney informed the Court that the applicant has died, and that his daughters as heirs want to continue the proceedings. The government pointed out that there is no legal basis for the daughter of the deceased. the applicant acquired the status of a party in the proceedings before the Court and challenged their status as heirs, since they renounced their inheritance in the probate proceedings. The court sent the Government's observations to them for a response. As within the deadline, nor subsequently, the daughter of the deceased. the applicant and the attorney did not respond to the Court's letter, the Court drew their attention to the fact that the deadline for giving an answer has expired and that an extension of the deadline has not been requested, and that these circumstances indicate that they do not want to continue the proceedings.