THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SELIMI AND KRASNIĆI v. SERBIA
(Applications nos. 20641/20 and 20644/20)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Failure to resume payment of pensions pro futuro, after its suspension, to the applicants by the Kosovo branch office of the Serbian Pensions and Disability Insurance Fund, before it came under international administration in 1999 • Applicants not afforded a reasonable opportunity to effectively challenge the interference with their rights
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
3 June 2025
 
 
FINAL
 
03/09/2025
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Selimi and Krasnići v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Darian Pavli,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 20641/20 and 20644/20) against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Serbian nationals, Mr Abdurahim Selimi (“the first applicant”) and Ms Bahrije Krasnići (“the second applicant”), on the dates indicated in the appended table;
the decisions to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of those applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applications concern the suspension of pensions paid by the Serbian Pensions and Disability Insurance Fund (SPDIF) to applicants whose claims had been granted and paid by that fund’s branch office in Kosovo[1] before it came under international administration in 1999. In particular, the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the length of the related administrative and judicial review proceedings, as well as the fact that they had not been paid their pensions since 1999. THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ personal details are set out in the appended table, as are the dates of introduction of their applications to the Court and the information regarding their legal counsel. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The context
5. Following the intervention of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in June 1999 Kosovo was placed under international administration. 6. On 18 June 2004 the Serbian Ministry for Work, Employment and Social Policy responded to a query by informing Kosovo’s Ombudsman that the pension system in Serbia was based on the concept of “ongoing financing”: specifically, pensions were paid from current pension insurance contributions. Consequently, as the Serbian authorities had been unable to collect any such contributions in Kosovo since 1999, persons who had received their pensions from a Kosovo branch office of the SPDIF could not expect to continue receiving them. The Ministry also reminded the Ombudsman that the regulations on pensions in Kosovo provided for a separate pension system for those living in the territory (see paragraphs 71 and 103 below).
specific circumstances as regards the FIRST APPLICANT (Mr ABDURAHIM SELIMI, APPLICATION No. 20641/20)The grant of the SPDIF pension and its subsequent suspension

7. On 5 December 1991 the first applicant was granted an old age pension by an SPDIF branch office in Kosovo, backdated to 1 July 1990. 8. The first applicant received his monthly pension instalments regularly until 1 March 1999. However, the payments then stopped. 9. The first applicant thereafter repeatedly complained to the SPDIF about the suspension of the payment of his pension, but apparently received no answer. Administrative and judicial review proceedings
10. On 30 April 2013 the first applicant lodged a formal request with the SPDIF for the resumption of his monthly pension payments, as well as the payment of the accrued pension arrears. 11. On 6 December 2013 the SPDIF dismissed the first applicant’s request, holding that he was already being paid the basic Kosovan pension and could not receive two pensions simultaneously (see paragraphs 69 and 103-106 below). 12. On an unspecified date thereafter the first applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with a higher SPDIF administrative authority, but on 5 February 2014 that authority upheld the SPDIF’s decision. 13. Following five subsequent remittals in administrative and judicial review proceedings, on 11 October 2021 the Administrative Court again remitted the case to the SPDIF for re-examination. In its reasoning the court referred to, inter alia, various provisions of the Pensions and Disability Insurance Act (see paragraphs 68-70 below, Articles 110, 119 and 123). It held that the SPDIF had failed to give reasons for its decision, including as regards why it had assumed without there being any supporting evidence that the first applicant had indeed not opted in favour of an SPDIF pension rather than a Kosovan one. 14. Following a further administrative remittal, on 27 July 2022 the SPDIF ruled against the first applicant, rejecting his request for the payment of his pension to be resumed. In so doing, it noted, inter alia, that the first applicant had been receiving a basic Kosovan pension since 2004. Moreover, he could not have been paid a pension since 1999 firstly because of the armed conflict in Kosovo and subsequently because the SPDIF was no longer in possession of the relevant documentation. In any event, the first applicant did not report in a timely manner the fact that he was receiving a basic Kosovan pension, and this information was something that the SPDIF could not have obtained itself. 15. The first applicant maintained that he had not been served with the decision of 27 July 2022, and on 17 October 2022 asked the SPDIF to send him a copy of it. 16. Ultimately, on 11 October 2023, the applicant lodged an appeal against the SPDIF decision of 27 July 2022 (see paragraph 14 above). 17. On 20 January 2024 the first applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the delay in his case. 18. On 1 February 2024 the Administrative Court ordered the first applicant’s lawyer to provide it with a form authorising him to act, signed by the first applicant and certified by a notary. 19. On 13 March 2024 the first applicant stated to the Administrative Court that, inter alia, he had already provided it with an original authorisation form signed by himself, which had been attached to his complaint of 1 February 2024. As for the order to have the form certified by a notary, the first applicant maintained that there was no such requirement in the relevant procedural legislation in a situation where, as in the present case, the person representing a client was a registered and practising lawyer. 20. On 9 February 2024 the appeal against the SPDIF decision of 27 July 2022 (see paragraphs 14 and 16 above) was dismissed by the higher SPDIF authority. It upheld the reasoning given at first instance and further stated that, inter alia, the first applicant had to decide which pension he wanted to receive and, if he wanted to receive the SPDIF pension, he should renounce his Kosovan pension and resubmit his request to the SPDIF. 21. In response to the first applicant’s earlier complaint about the delay in the administrative proceedings (see paragraph 17 above), on 19 August 2024 the Administrative Court made essentially the same order as it had on 1 February 2024, asking for a notarised form of authority to act (see paragraph 18 above). 22. On 28 August 2024 the first applicant’s lawyer made a further submission to the Administrative Court, essentially restating his arguments of 13 March 2024 (see paragraph 19 above). The lawyer added that, in any event, there were no notaries in Kosovo that were recognised by the Serbian authorities. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
23. On 26 March 2018 the first applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. He complained about the overall length of the administrative and judicial review proceedings, as well as about breaches of his property and pension rights. The first applicant also referred to the guarantees contained in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and sought compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered. 24. The first applicant later supplemented his appeal on several occasions. 25. On 9 December 2021 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the first applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time, ordered that the proceedings in question be expedited and awarded him the equivalent of 900 euros (EUR) in Serbian dinars for non-pecuniary damage. The remaining complaints, as well as the first applicant’s pecuniary damage claim, were all dismissed as premature given that the disputed administrative proceedings were still ongoing. 26. On 1 June 2022 the Ministry of Justice paid the first applicant the sum awarded to him by the Constitutional Court. Other relevant facts
27. The first applicant repeatedly complained about the delay in the administrative proceedings under the relevant provisions of national law (see paragraphs 83, 84, 91 and 94 below). 28. On 21 June 2004 the Kosovan authorities certified that the first applicant had been receiving a “basic” Kosovan monthly pension since 2004 (see paragraph 103 below). 29. On 15 October 2019 the Kosovan authorities additionally certified that as of 2 June 2004 the first applicant had been receiving a “basic” Kosovan monthly pension. In addition to that, as of 1 January 2008, the first applicant had been receiving a contributory pension provided for under the Kosovan regulations (see paragraphs 103-109 below). 30. In 2024 the first applicant’s lawyer tried to get in touch with the first applicant but could not reach him. In April 2024 the lawyer was informed by the first applicant’s son that his father had died on 5 March 2024. On that occasion the son informed the lawyer that Ms Sabile Selimi, that is, his mother and the first applicant’s wife, wished to continue with the proceedings before the Court: the first applicant’s children were not interested in doing so. The son also stated that an application for the first applicant’s wife to be declared his sole successor would be brought as soon as possible. 31. On 24 September 2024 the first applicant’s lawyer was provided with the relevant birth, death and marriage certificates issued by the Kosovan authorities. These documents were then forwarded to the Court itself, together with the filled-in pages nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Court’s application form. The third page included the signature of the first applicant’s wife authorising the first applicant’s lawyer to represent her in the ongoing case before the Court.
specific circumstances as regArds the SECOND APPLICANT (Ms BAHRIJE KRASNIĆI, APPLICATION No. 20644/20)The grant of the SPDIF pension with a supplemental allowance and their subsequent suspension

32. On 30 May 1986 the second applicant was granted a survivor’s pension with a protective allowance by an SPDIF branch office in Kosovo, backdated to 1 September 1985. 33. The second applicant received those monthly payments regularly until 15 February 1999, when they stopped. 34. The second applicant complained to the SPDIF about the effective suspension of her pension, together with the allowance, but apparently received no answer. Administrative and judicial review proceedings
35. On 16 March 2017 the second applicant lodged a formal request for the resumption of the payments from the SPDIF, as well as for the payment of the accrued arrears. 36. On 26 June 2017 the SPDIF dismissed the second applicant’s request, holding that she had not provided sufficient evidence of whether she was already being paid the “basic” Kosovan pension and that she could not receive two pensions simultaneously (see paragraphs 69 and 103-109 below). 37. On 17 July 2017 the second applicant lodged an appeal with a higher SPDIF administrative authority, but on 21 September 2017 that authority upheld the disputed decision. 38. Following four subsequent remittals in administrative and judicial review proceedings, on 2 November 2021 the SPDIF again ruled against the second applicant. It noted, in particular, that information in the case file showed the second applicant to be receiving Kosovan “basic” and contributory pensions. In those circumstances, the second applicant was asked to choose between being paid her Kosovan pensions or having her SPDIF pension reinstated. However, the second applicant did not make a choice and she also failed to provide the documentation requested. When the case file was looked at again, it was realised, inter alia, that a copy of an invalid identity card had been filed and that the certificate confirming that the second applicant was still alive dated from 2017. 39. The second applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against that decision with the higher SPDIF administrative authority, contesting its conclusions and the application of the relevant domestic law. The lawyer included a statement of the difficulties she had had recently in contacting the second applicant. 40. It would appear that on 22 December 2021 the second applicant’s lawyer lodged a further appeal against the SPDIF decision of 2 November 2021 (see paragraph 38 above), this time on behalf of the second applicant’s son, it having become apparent that the second applicant had died. 41. On 10 February 2022 the second applicant’s lawyer informed the SPDIF that the second applicant had died on 16 August 2021 and that her son, Mr Ramadan Krasnići, wanted to continue with the proceedings. The lawyer also provided the relevant Kosovan death and birth certificates, certified by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). On the death certificate, however, it was stated that the second applicant had died on 24 December 2020 but that the death had been formally registered on 16 August 2021. 42. On 9 May 2022 the SPDIF invited the second applicant’s lawyer to provide a written authority, signed by her deceased client’s son and certified by the appropriate Serbian authorities, which would authorise her to represent the second applicant’s successor in the proceedings. The lawyer was warned that, should she not comply with this request, the appeal she had lodged against the SPDIF decision of 2 November 2021 would be dismissed. The SPDIF lastly stated that all other evidence in the proceedings also had to be provided in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Serbia. 43. On 20 June 2022 the second applicant’s lawyer responded to the SPDIF’s request. She stated that:
(i) she had obtained an authorisation form signed by her former client’s son and certified by a notary in Kosovo;
(ii) Mr Ramadan Krasnići had attempted to have the authorisation form certified by the Serbian authorities, but could not do so since he did not have a Serbian identity card and it would take many years for him to obtain one;
(iii) Mr Ramadan Krasnići might also be asked to bring legal proceedings before the Serbian courts in order to have his mother’s death formally recognised; and
(iv) in any event, Serbian law did not require an authorisation form to be certified by anyone when, as in the present case, the person being authorised was a practising lawyer. 44. On 5 August 2022 the appeal against the decision of 2 November 2021 (see paragraph 38 above) was dismissed by the SPDIF as having been pursued by an unauthorised person. It was held, in particular, that the second applicant’s lawyer had not filed a properly certified authorisation form signed by her former client’s successor authorising her to represent him in the proceedings. 45. There was a further remittal in the administrative proceedings on 29 December 2022. The court found the appeal lodged by the second applicant’s lawyer on behalf of her son to be admissible. On 18 January 2023 the SPDIF again dismissed the second applicant’s substantive claim. It noted, inter alia, that the second applicant had been receiving a “basic” Kosovo pension since 2002 and could not receive two pensions simultaneously. 46. On 1 February 2023 the second applicant’s lawyer, now representing Mr Ramadan Krasnići, the second applicant’s son, lodged an appeal against that decision. 47. On 21 June 2023 the higher SPDIF administrative authority revoked the disputed decision and remitted the case for re-examination. It observed that the facts had yet to be properly established and that adequate legal reasons likewise needed to be given. 48. On 23 October 2023 the SPDIF dismissed the second applicant’s request for the payment of her pensions to be resumed. It observed, inter alia, that she had been paid the “basic” Kosovan pension until the day of her death and could not have received two pensions simultaneously. The SPDIF furthermore referred to a number of provisions of the Pensions and Disability Insurance Act (see paragraphs 69 and 70 below). 49. On 2 November 2023 the second applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against that decision. 50. On 27 December 2023 her appeal was dismissed by the higher SPDIF administrative authority. The impugned decision rendered at first instance was thereby upheld and it reasoning affirmed. 51. In response to a complaint about the delay in the administrative proceedings, on 5 February 2024 the Administrative Court asked the second applicant’s lawyer to provide a written authority signed by her deceased client’s son and certified by the relevant Serbian authorities which would authorise her to represent the second applicant’s successor in the proceedings. The lawyer was warned that should she not comply with this request her client’s complaint would be rejected. 52. On 12 February 2024 the second applicant’s son challenged the decision of 27 December 2023 (see paragraph 50 above) and sought a judicial review of it in the Administrative Court (see paragraph 93 below). 53. On 23 February 2024 the second applicant’s lawyer responded to the Administrative Court’s request of 5 February 2024 (see paragraph 51 above). She stated that she had already provided an original authorisation signed by her former client’s son. In any event Serbian law did not require an authorisation form to be certified by anyone when, as in the present case, the person being authorised was a practising lawyer. Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
54. On 25 March 2019 the second applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. She complained about the overall length of the administrative and judicial review proceedings and that there had been a breach of her property and pension rights. She referred to the guarantees in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 55. The second applicant supplemented her appeal on several occasions. 56. On 20 May 2021 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the second applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time, ordered that the proceedings in question be expedited, and awarded her the equivalent of EUR 500 in Serbian dinars for non-pecuniary damage. The remaining complaints, as well as the second applicant’s pecuniary damage claim, were all dismissed as premature given that the disputed administrative proceedings were still ongoing. 57. In April 2022 the second applicant’s lawyer informed the Ministry of Justice that her client had died and that her son Mr Ramadan Krasnići, as her legal successor, had authorised her to receive the compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court. In this connection, the second applicant’s lawyer apparently also provided the Ministry of Justice with an authorisation form signed by the second applicant’s son which had been certified by a notary in Kosovo and verified by UNMIK, as well as the relevant death and birth certificates verified by UNMIK. However, since that documentation was considered incomplete and inadequate, the Ministry of Justice had refused to authorise payment. 58. According to the second applicant’s lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 awarded by the Constitutional Court has still not been paid because the second applicant’s son does not have a Serbian identity card, which would take years to obtain, and does not have a Serbian-issued decision declaring him his mother’s legal successor. The Serbian authorities did not recognise such decisions certified by Kosovan notaries. The civil proceedings
59. In 2019 the second applicant lodged a civil claim against the SPDIF with the Belgrade Court of First Instance for payment of the pension arrears accrued between March 2016 and February 2019 plus statutory interest and litigation costs. 60. On 10 March 2020 the Court of First Instance ruled partly in favour of the second applicant and acknowledged a breach of her property rights. It also ordered the SPDIF to pay the second applicant’s pension arrears from the period between March 2016 and December 2018, together with the appropriate statutory interest and litigation costs. The court furthermore referred to, inter alia, domestic legislation, the Court’s judgment in Grudić v. Serbia (no. 31925/08, 17 April 2012), and the Kosovan authorities’ certificate of 4 February 2019 that the second applicant was not then receiving a disability pension, a survivor’s pension or a contributory pension. The Court of First Instance lastly held that the three-year statutory limitation period was not relevant in the specific circumstances of the case. 61. The parties both lodged appeals against that judgment. 62. On 13 April 2023 the Court of Appeal sent the case file back to the Court of First Instance for rectification of the judgment. 63. On 9 August 2024 the Court of First Instance rectified its initial judgment by correcting the spelling of the late second applicant’s first name. 64. The proceedings on appeal would appear to be still ongoing. Other relevant facts
65. The second applicant repeatedly complained about the delay in the administrative proceedings under the relevant provisions of the domestic law (see paragraphs 83, 84, 91 and 94 below). 66. On 26 March 2019 the Kosovan authorities issued a document, certified by UNMIK, stating that the second applicant was not receiving a disability pension, a survivor’s pension or a contributory pension (see paragraphs 103-109 below). 67. On 26 March 2019 the Kosovan authorities issued an additional document, certified by UNMIK, to the effect that the second applicant had been receiving a “basic” Kosovan pension since 1 January 2002. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
serbian law and practiceThe Pensions and Disability Insurance Act (Zakon o penzijskom i invalidskom osiguranju; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS – nos. 34/03, 64/04, 84/04, 85/05, 101/05, 63/06, 5/09, 107/09, 30/10, 101/10, 93/12, 62/13, 108/13, 75/14, 142/14, 73/18, 46/19, 86/19, 62/21, 125/22, 138/22, 75/23, 76/23 and 94/24)

68. Article 110 of this Act provides, inter alia, that a person’s pension and disability rights must be terminated if he or she no longer meets the statutory requirements. However, should a current pensioner obtain an additional pension from another pension and disability insurance fund established by one of the other States within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the pension paid to him or her by the SPDIF must, unless an international agreement provides otherwise, be recalculated based on the pensionable employment period (penzijski staž) already taken into account by the other State. 69. Article 119 provides that when a pensioner is entitled to two or more pensions within the territory of the Republic of Serbia, only one of those pensions may be paid, the choice as to which being the pensioner’s. 70. Article 123 provides, inter alia, that pension instalments which have not been paid owing to circumstances for which the pensioner is responsible, such as the failure to provide relevant but officially unavailable information, documentation or authorisation, are payable only for the twelve months preceding the date on which the pensioner lodged the request for payment. Opinion of the Ministry for Social Affairs (Mišljenje Ministarstva za socijalna pitanja) no. 181-01-126/2003 of 7 March 2003, and Opinion of the Ministry for Labour, Employment and Social Policy (Mišljenje Ministarstva rada, zapošljavanja i socijalne politike) no. 182-02-20/2004-07 of 18 June 2004
71. These Opinions stated, inter alia, that the pension system in Serbia was based on the concept of “ongoing financing”: specifically, pensions were paid from current pension insurance contributions. Since the Serbian authorities had been unable to collect any such contributions in Kosovo since 1999, persons who had been granted SPDIF pensions in Kosovo could not expect, for the time being, to continue receiving them. It was furthermore stated that Regulation 2001/35 on pensions in Kosovo, which had been adopted by UNMIK, provided for a separate pension system for persons living in the territory (see paragraph 103 below). The Obligations Act (Zakon o obligacionim odnosima, published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – OG SFRY – nos. 29/78, 39/85, 45/89, 57/89, the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – OG FRY – no. 31/93, and OG RS no. 18/20)
72. Article 172 § 1 of this Act provides that a legal entity, which includes the State, is liable for any damage caused by one of “its bodies” to a “third person”. 73. Article 372 § 1 provides, inter alia, that the limitation period for claims relating to payments which are made once a year or more frequently is three years. Time runs from the date when each payment becomes due. 74. Article 376 §§ 1 and 2 provides, inter alia, that the limitation period for civil compensation claims is three years from the date on which the claimant first learnt of the damage in question, but that, in any event, the absolute deadline is five years from the time the damage occurred. Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court’s Civil Division on 15 November 2005 (Pravno shvatanje Građanskog odeljenja Vrhovnog sud Srbije, sa obrazloženjem, utvrđeno na sednici od 15. novembra 2005. godine, Bilten sudske prakse br. 3/05)
75. In response to the situation in Kosovo, this Opinion stated, inter alia, that a person’s recognised right to a pension may only be restricted on the basis of Article 110 of the Pensions and Disability Insurance Act (see paragraph 68 above). Recognised individual pension rights could not depend on whether current pension insurance contributions could be collected in a given territory. 76. The Supreme Court explained that administrative proceedings (upravni postupak) and, if necessary, judicial review proceedings (upravni spor) would be the appropriate avenue for a challenge to a restriction of pension rights. 77. Lastly, the Supreme Court observed that, in this context, the civil courts had jurisdiction only in cases involving claims of unlawful and improper action (nezakonit i nepravilan rad) by the SPDIF. The Inheritance Act (Zakon o nasleđivanju, published in OG RS nos. 46/95, 101/03 and 6/15)
78. Article 1 § 2 of this Act provides that a deceased’s estate consists of all rights that belonged to the deceased at the time of his or her death and which can be inherited. 79. Article 206 § 1 provides, inter alia, that when a person dies, his or her estate will be “opened”. 80. Article 212 § 1 provides that a deceased’s estate passes to the deceased’s legal successors by operation of law at the moment of his or her death. The Non-contentious Proceedings Act (Zakon o vanparničnom postupku, published in the OG RS nos. 25/82, 48/88, 46/95, 18/05, 85/12, 45/13, 55/14, 6/15, 106/15 and 14/22)
81. Article 87 of this Act provides, inter alia, that a decision taken in inheritance proceedings determines who the deceased’s legal successors are, which property belongs to his or her estate, and who will inherit. 82. Article 122 § 1 provides that when it has been established which persons have the right to inherit, those persons must then be declared the deceased’s legal successors. The 1997 General Administrative Proceedings Act (Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku; published in OG FRY nos. 33/97 and 31/01, as well as in OG RS no. 30/10), as in force at the material time
83. Article 208 § 1 of this Act provided, inter alia, that in simple matters an administrative body had to issue a decision within one month of the date on which the claimant had lodged his or her request. In all other cases, the administrative body had to give a decision within two months. 84. Article 208 § 2 enabled a claimant whose request was not decided within the time-limits set in the preceding paragraph to lodge an appeal as if his or her request had been refused. Where an appeal was not allowed, the claimant had the right to directly bring an administrative dispute in a court. 85. This Act was repealed and replaced on 1 June 2017 by the 2016 General Administrative Proceedings Act (see paragraphs 86-92 below). The 2016 General Administrative Proceedings Act (Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku; published in OG RS no. 18/16, 95/18 and 2/23)
86. Article 49 § 2 of this Act provides, inter alia, that if there are doubts as to the genuineness of an authorisation form, the administrative authority concerned is to order the claimant to submit a certified original. 87. Article 50 § 1 provides that the administrative authority is to make sure, throughout the proceedings, that the person designated to represent the claimant is indeed authorised to do so. 88. Article 52 § 1 provides, inter alia, that authorisation to represent a claimant in the proceedings does not end automatically with the death of the claimant, but that the claimant’s legal successor may revoke the authorisation previously granted. 89. Article 123 provides, inter alia, that foreign documents that have the probative value of a public document in the country in which they were issued have, under the condition of reciprocity, the probative value of a domestic public document, if they are duly authenticated. A certified translation must be attached to a document drawn up in a foreign language, if necessary. 90. Article 145 provides, inter alia, that when proceedings are instituted at the request of a claimant, or by an administrative authority itself but in the interests of the claimant, and when direct decision-making is possible, the administrative authority concerned is to give its decision within a period of thirty days after the commencement of the proceedings. 91. Article 173 provides, inter alia, that when an administrative authority does not give a decision within the deadline specified by law, a higher administrative authority must require it to provide an explanation. Should the higher authority find that the reasons given are sufficient, it must extend the deadline by thirty days at the most. Should the higher authority find that the stated reasons are not sufficient, it must take the decision itself or order the lower authority do so within an additional period of no more than fifteen days. Should that authority again fail to comply, the higher authority must decide on the matter itself. 92. On 1 June 2017 this Act repealed and replaced the 1997 General Administrative Proceedings Act (see paragraphs 83-85 above). The Administrative Disputes Act (Zakon o upravnim sporovima; published in OG RS no. 111/09)
93. Articles 3-6 of this Act provide, inter alia, that judicial review proceedings may be brought against an administrative authority that makes a decision that is later disputed. 94. Article 19 § 1 provides, inter alia, that should a higher administrative authority have failed to decide an appeal lodged more than sixty days earlier, and should it again fail to do so in another seven days after receipt of a claimant’s repeated request to that effect, the claimant may institute judicial review proceedings directly, as if his or her appeal had been dismissed. 95. Article 43 provides, inter alia, that when it finds that a disputed administrative decision should be set aside, the court itself may, under certain circumstances, adjudicate the administrative matter itself, if the nature of the case allows it and if the established facts provide a reliable basis for so doing. The court’s judgment will in that situation replace the disputed administrative decision in all respects. The Legalisation of Public Documents in the International Context Act (Zakon o legalizaciji isprava u međunarodnom prometu, published in OG SFRY no. 6/73 and the Official Gazette of Serbia and Montenegro no. 1/03)
96. Article 3 of this Act provides, inter alia, that public documents issued abroad can be used inside Serbia only if they have been certified by the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or by one of Serbia’s diplomatic or consular missions abroad. Foreign public documents are not subject to authentication, within the meaning of this provision, if, on the basis of reciprocity, Serbian public documents are also not subject to authentication in the foreign country concerned. Domestic case-law provided by the GovernmentSupreme Court of Cassation - 24 February 2016

97. In its decision Rev. no. 862/2015 of 24 February 2016 the Supreme Court of Cassation held, inter alia, that the acquired right to a pension was a possession of the claimant and that therefore the suspension of payment of it was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. A claim for pension arrears was a recurring monetary claim to which the statutory three-year time limit applied under Article 372 or Article 376 of the Obligations Act (see paragraphs 73 and 74 above). The court lastly referred to Article 172 of the same Act (see paragraph 72 above) and observed that regardless of whether a claim for pension arrears was based on compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered or on unjust enrichment there were no grounds for allowing a longer limitation period. The Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation - 27 June 2017
98. On 27 June 2017 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation decided on the quantum to be awarded where pensions had been suspended (Zaključak usvojen na sednici Građanskog odeljenja Vrhovnog kasacionog suda održanoj 27. juna 2017. godine, Bilten br. 3/2017). In cases involving compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered as a consequence of the “non-payment of [SPDIF] pensions to persons from the territory of ... Kosovo and Metohija”, the “amount of money received by the plaintiff from UNMIK” must be “taken into account” and the compensation reduced accordingly (see paragraph 99 below). The Belgrade Court of Appeal
99. The Government provided copies of a total of twenty-four civil judgments and decisions taken by the Belgrade Court of Appeal between 30 August 2018 and 11 January 2023. Fifteen of them were in favour of claimants seeking SPDIF pension arrears. In all of the judgments and decisions, the court applied the reasoning described in paragraphs 75-77, 97 and 98 above as regards:
(a) the non-payment of pensions arrears;
(b) compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered;
(c) the three-year limitation period; and
(d) the need to take into account, based on relevant documentation issued by UNMIK or the Kosovan institutions, any other pensions being received in Kosovo at the material time (see Gž. nos. 5099/18, 8936/18, 9764/19, 6955/19, 4970/19, 5681/20, 7356/20, 3955/20, 6714/21, 6434/21, 4744/21, 5508/21, 5371/21, 6386/21, 5584/21, 5821/22, 5560/22, 3921/22, 3888/22, 1826/22, 2325/22, 2990/22, 2471/22 and 6291/22). 100. In judgements Gž. no. 1826/22 of 14 April 2022 and Gž. no. 2471/22 of 2 June 2022, respectively, the Belgrade Court of Appeal accepted an inheritance-related decision and a certificate that a claimant was still alive issued by a Kosovan notary. 101. On 9 December 2021, in Gž. no. 6386/21, the Belgrade Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that the validity of an inheritance-related decision issued by a Kosovan notary was not decisive since it was, in any event, clear that the claimant was her mother’s only legal successor, even in the absence of a formal decision to this effect, by virtue of Article 212 of the Inheritance Act (see paragraph 80 above). 102. In Gž. no. 6291/22 of 11 January 2023 the Belgrade Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that an inheritance-related decision issued by a Kosovan notary was inadmissible given that it had not been made in accordance with the required procedures and or by the relevant bodies of the Republic of Serbia. Relevant law in KosovoRegulation 2001/35 on pensions in Kosovo and Regulation 2005/20 amending Regulation 2001/35, both regulations having been adopted by UNMIK in 2001 and 2005 respectively

103. These regulations provide for a separate system whereby all persons aged sixty-five or over “habitually residing” in Kosovo have the right to a “basic pension”. The Act to Amend Regulations 2001/35 and 2005/20
104. On 13 June 2008 the Kosovan Assembly passed this Act, which essentially endorsed the system set up by the two Regulations cited above, but transferred the functional competencies from UNMIK to the Kosovan authorities. Administrative Instruction no. 11/07 of 6 November 2007 on the execution of Government decision no. 13/277 of 31 October 2007
105. These regulations provide, inter alia, that the basic pension referred to in paragraph 103 above, in the amount of EUR 40 monthly, could be increased to EUR 75 for all pensioners aged sixty-five or over habitually residing in Kosovo who could prove, inter alia, that they had been paying pension insurance contributions to the SPDIF for at least fifteen years and were not in receipt of another contributory pension on the same basis. Administrative Instruction no. 15/09 of July 2009 on the execution of Government decision no. 2/51 of 23 January 2009
106. These regulations essentially affirm the regulations described in paragraph 105 above, but raise the pension from EUR 75 to EUR 80 monthly. The 2014 Pension Schemes Financed by the State Act (no. 04/L-131, published in the Official Gazette – OG – no. 35/14 of 5 June 2014)
107. Articles 3 (1.4) and 7 § 1 of this Act provide, inter alia, that a “basic [old] age pension”, that is, a “minimal regular monthly pension”, will be paid to all permanent residents of Kosovo who have identity documents and are aged sixty-five or over, regardless of whether they had ever been employed. 108. Articles 3 (1.5) and 8 § 1 provide, under certain conditions, for an old “age contributory pension”, that is, a “regular monthly pension” for those who were formerly employed in Kosovo and had paid contributions to the SPDIF prior to 1 January 1999. Article 8 § 2 provides that all persons entitled to a contributory pension will be categorised taking into account the applicable pensionable employment period, as well as other relevant criteria. 109. Article 13 provides, inter alia, for the Kosovan authorities to adjust pension rates annually by reference to living costs and the rate of inflation. The 2023 Amendments to the 2014 Pension Schemes Financed by the State Act (08/L-176, published in OG no. 16/23 of 6 July 2023)
110. This legislation amends and supplements certain evidential and procedural provisions contained in the 2014 Pension Schemes Financed by the State Act. The 2023 Amendments to the 2014 Pension Schemes Financed by the State Act (08/L-248, published in OG no. 20/23 of 16 August 2023)
111. Articles 2, 4 and 5 of this Act, by means of amending and supplementing the relevant provisions contained in the 2014 Pension Schemes Financed by the State Act, provide, inter alia, that:
(i) a person is “resident in Kosovo” if he or she is physically present for more than one hundred and eighty-three days in a period of twelve months;
(ii) in certain situations related to termination of employment, persons who had not paid the required fifteen years of contributions to the SPDIF could still obtain a reduced old age pension; and
(iii) the payment of a pension under this legislation is to be terminated if the pensioner concerned ceases to be a resident of Kosovo.
other Relevant materials
112. According to the Council of Europe’s department for the execution of the Court’s judgments, in 2013 a public invitation to eligible persons to apply for resumption of payment of their SPDIF pensions to which they had contributed in Kosovo was published by the Serbian authorities in a number of national and local newspapers, as well as on the SPDIF website[2]. 113. That public invitation said, inter alia, that a beneficiary of an SPDIF pension from the territory of Kosovo, whose pension had been suspended as from 9 June 1999, would need to contact the relevant SPDIF branch office, with certain evidence, within a period of sixty days from the date of the publication of the invitation to have the pension reinstated. The evidence necessary for the resumption of payment of an SPDIF pension included:
(a) an SPDIF decision that the person was entitled to receive a pension;
(b) evidence confirming the identity of the pensioner concerned and his or her personal details;
(c) evidence of not being paid at present or having been paid in the past a pension by the Kosovan authorities or UNMIK;
(d) a valid certificate that the person was alive or an application in person to the SPDIF for the resumption of pension payments; and
(e) in the case of an application for a survivor’s pension, evidence that the claimant was not insured personally and, where appropriate, proof of the fulfilment of certain educational requirements. All of the above evidence had to be provided “in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Serbia”[3]. 114. The Court’s judgment in Grudić (cited above) was enforced under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. That enforcement ended on 7 December 2017 because the Committee of Ministers was satisfied that all the measures required under Article 46 of the Convention, both individual and general, had been taken by the Serbian Government[4]. The Committee of Ministers also referred to the Action Report prepared by the Government which, inter alia, outlined the various domestic administrative, civil and constitutional remedies available. The Committee of Ministers also referred to the above-mentioned public invitation[5]. 115. According to the Government’s Action Report of September 2017, following the public invitation of 2013 the Serbian authorities had received a total of 9,790 requests for the resumption of payment of SPDIF pensions. In 3,920 of those cases, the relevant documents were provided, while in the remaining 5,870 cases the claimants provided incomplete documentation. Since 1 March 2013 the SPDIF had agreed to a total of 533 requests for pensions to be reinstated in accordance with the applicable domestic statutory requirements, while 3,387 requests were rejected, mostly because those claimants were already receiving other pensions in Kosovo. Namely, pursuant to the domestic relevant legal provision, a pension beneficiary entitled to two or several pensions on the territory of Republic of Serbia could only exercise the right to one pension according to his/her own preference[6]. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
116. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Preliminary mattersThe death of the first applicantThe parties’ submissions

117. The Government maintained that both the domestic proceedings and the proceedings before the Court could only have continued after the first applicant’s death if there was a formal statement by an interested party of an intention to continue the proceedings. In the present case, however, there had been no such statement. The first applicant’s lawyer had only had a telephone conversation with his former client’s son in which the son had said that his mother, the first applicant’s wife, was willing to continue with the proceedings before the Court. The birth, death and marriage certificates provided were not capable of proving that anyone was the deceased’s legal successor. The first applicant’s successors would, of course, have a material interest in continuing with the proceedings, but their status as such had to be determined through the appropriate legal channels (see paragraphs 80-82 above). According to the Government, the Court itself also had to be properly informed of those facts, as well as of any successor’s relevant procedural intentions. 118. The first applicant’s lawyer said that in 2024 she had tried to get in touch with the first applicant but had been unsuccessful. In April 2024 she had been informed by her client’s son that his father had died on 5 March 2024. On that occasion the son had also told her that Ms Sabile Selimi, his mother and the first applicant’s wife, wished to continue with the proceedings before the Court. According to the first applicant’s lawyer, her late client’s son had said that proceedings declaring the first applicant’s wife as her husband’s sole legal successor would be brought as soon as possible.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation