FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF STEFANOVIĆ AND BANKOVIĆ v. SERBIA
(Applications nos. 21784/16 and 21826/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
5 November 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stefanović and Banković v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Tim Eicke, President,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 21784/16 and 21826/16) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar, of application no. 21826/16 and the complaint concerning the right to a fair hearing in application no. 21784/16, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the latter application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the applicants’ inability, allegedly in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in which final court judgments in their favour were quashed and their cases remitted for re-examination. APPLICATION No. 21784/16
2. In 2007 the applicant was shot by two men on the premises of a bank in Novi Sad. After the perpetrators had been convicted, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the bank seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 3. After a remittal, on 29 March 2012 the Novi Sad Court of First Instance adopted a decision partially allowing the applicant’s claim. That decision was upheld by the Novi Sad Court of Appeal on 13 June 2012. 4. Following a constitutional appeal lodged by the bank, on 23 April 2015 the Constitutional Court found that the lower courts had arbitrarily applied domestic law, it quashed the decision of 13 June 2012 and remitted the case for re-examination by the Novi Sad Court of Appeal. The Constitutional Court did not inform the applicant of the bank’s constitutional appeal or that the judgment in his favour had been quashed. 5. On 1 October 2015 the Novi Sad Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Novi Sad Court of First Instance of 29 March 2012 and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
applicatION No. 21826/16
6. In 1959 A.D. concluded a sale agreement (“the agreement”) under which he transferred on the applicant’s predecessors, S.B. and R.B., a right to use a plot of nationalised undeveloped construction land. Since S.B. and R.B. have never registered that entitlement with the Land Registry, A.D. remained the sole holder of that right, which subsequently passed to his successors, including Milan D. 7. In 2008 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Republic of Serbia and Milan D., seeking recognition of her right of use of the land. In the meantime, on the basis of 2009 Planning and Construction Act, Milan D. was registered as the owner of the land. 8. After a remittal, on 20 June 2012 the Belgrade Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant. On 29 November 2012 the Belgrade Court of Appeal reversed that decision and allowed the applicant’s claim. On the basis of that decision, the applicant, recorded her title to the land with the Land Registry. 9. Following a constitutional appeal by Milan D., on 10 December 2015 the Constitutional Court found that the Court of Appeal had arbitrarily applied substantive and procedural law, it quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision and remitted the case for re-examination. The Constitutional Court did not inform the applicant of Milan D.’s constitutional appeal or that the judgment in her favour had been quashed. 10. On 2 February 2017 the Belgrade Court of Appeal rendered a new decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. On 30 November 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant.

Outcome for Article 6: violation