ILIĆ v. SERBIA and 9 other applications
Doc ref: 33902/08;34039/10;80191/13;35951/14;63804/14;70619/14;9864/15;50472/16;33273/17;15922/19 • ECHR ID: 001-194549
Document date: June 20, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 7
Communicated on 20 June 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 33902/08 Radmila ILIĆ against Serbia and 9 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
These applications concern the alleged death of the applicants ’ new-born children between 1974 and 2007 in State-run hospitals, and the applicants ’ belief or suspicion that they are or may yet be alive, having unlawfully been given up for adoption (see Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08 , ECHR 2013).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 33902/08, 33273/17 and 15922/19, exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could an appeal provided for under Article 170 of the Serbian Constitution ( ustavna žalba ), in a case such as theirs, be considered effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vinčić and Others v. Serbia , no. 44698/06 and others, § 51, 1 December 2009, and Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 21794/08 , § 63, ECHR 2013 )? The Government are invited to submit any and all Constitutional Court case-law in this respect.
2. Have the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 33902/08 and 34039/10, complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has this requirement been satisfied since these applications were introduced between three and nine years after 28 December 2010, while bearing also in mind that the Article 46 deadline, as imposed by the Court in its Zorica Jovanović judgment, itself only expired on 9 September 2014 (cited above, §§ 52-57 and 92)?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to respect for their family life, respectively, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Zorica Jovanović , cited above , §§ 68-75 )?
4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8, respectively, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Represented by
1
33902/08
Ilić v. Serbia
01/07/2008
Radmila ILIĆ
2
34039/10
Bukvički v. Serbia
14/04/2010
Svetlana BUKVIÄŒKI
3
80191/13
Agatonović v. Serbia
06/12/2013
Živan AGATONOVIĆ
Milka AGATONOVIĆ
4
35951/14
Kovačević v. Serbia
08/05/2014
Mileta KOVAČEVIĆ
Dragana KOVAČEVIĆ
Živan AGATONOVIĆ
5
63804/14
Mikić v. Serbia
10/09/2014
Lazar MIKIĆ
Živan AGATONOVIĆ
6
70619/14
Jurišić v. Serbia
24/12/2014
Milanka JURIŠIĆ
Dragica GOVEDARICA
7
9864/15
Savković v. Serbia
09/02/2015
Radina SAVKOVIĆ
Miroljub SAVKOVIĆ
Živan AGATONOVIĆ
8
50472/16
Burojević v. Serbia
16/08/2016
Jasmina BUROJEVIĆ
9
33273/17
Ilić v. Serbia
25/04/2017
Dragan ILIĆ
Blaža MENKOVIĆ
10
15922/19
Savković v. Serbia
05/03/2019
Mirjana SAVKOVIĆ
APPENDIX