Published on 12 December 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 53002/21 ISKRA D.O.O. BEOGRAD against Serbia lodged on 15 October 2021 communicated on 22 November 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the allegedly unlawful demolition and deprivation of the applicant company’s property as part of a redevelopment project in Belgrade, as well as the civil proceedings brought in this connection thereafter.

With reference to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complains that: (a) it suffered a violation of its property rights as a consequence of the incidents in question; (b) its civil rights were breached by the national courts through an arbitrary interpretation of the relevant domestic legislation in the subsequent possessory proceedings ( postupak zbog smetanja državine ); (c) this in itself affirmed the initial violation of its property rights; and (d) there was ultimately no effective domestic redress afforded in this context.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, would a civil case aimed at obtaining compensation for the damage allegedly caused to the applicant company have been an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision and in respect of its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014, and Popović and Others v. Serbia , nos. 26944/13 and 3 others, § 58, 30 June 2020)?

2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the reasons given by the domestic courts in their application of the relevant domestic legislation, did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with this provision (see Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013 )?

3. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has the applicant company been deprived of its possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy , no. 31524/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ VI)?

4. Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 65, ECHR 1999 ‑ II)?