LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
SELIMI v. SERBIA and 16 other applications
Doc ref: 20641/20, 20645/20, 28335/20, 28645/20, 31135/20, 31194/20, 31718/20, 36062/20, 42874/20, 44401/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-221459
Document date: November 10, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 9
SELIMI v. SERBIA and 16 other applications
Doc ref: 20641/20, 20645/20, 28335/20, 28645/20, 31135/20, 31194/20, 31718/20, 36062/20, 42874/20, 44401/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-221459
Document date: November 10, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
Published on 28 November 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 20641/20 Abdurahim SELIMI against Serbia and 16 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 November 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
These applications concern the suspension of pensions paid by the Serbian Pension Fund to applicants whose entitlements had been granted/paid by this fund’s branch office in Kosovo [1] before Kosovo’s placement under international administration in 1999.
Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicants complain about the length of the related and still ongoing administrative and judicial review proceedings.
Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 they also complain about not being paid or fully paid their pensions since 1999, as well as the continuing absence of effective redress domestically.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicants respectively, in connection with their complaints about the length of proceedings raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, still claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 given the decisions adopted by the Constitutional Court in this respect (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-107, ECHR 2006-V)?
2. Have the applicants respectively, regarding their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, exhausted all effective domestic remedies as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, could a separate civil claim for damages, administrative and judicial review proceedings or a constitutional appeal be considered effective within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and in the specific circumstances of the present cases (see, mutatis mutandis , Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 61, 25 March 2014; Grudić v. Serbia , no. 31925/08, § 48, 17 April 2012; Skenderi and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15090/08, §§ 7-22, 68-70, 100 and 109, 4 July 2017; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III; Jasinskis v. Latvia , no. 45744/08, §§ 50, 53 and 54, 21 December 2010; and Story and Others v. Malta , nos. 56854/13 and 2 others, § 80, 29 October 2015)?
3. Was the length of the respective pensions-related administrative and judicial review proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Živaljević v. Montenegro , no. 17229/04, §§ 72-78, 8 March 2011)?
4. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was there a breach of this provision in that the respondent State had first suspended the payment of the applicants’ pensions, respectively, and then did not afford them “a reasonable opportunity of putting” their claims “to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging” this interference (see Grudić and Others , §§ 77-83, cited above; Skenderi and Others , §§ 92-101, cited above; and Jokela v. Finland , no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002-IV, with further references)? Lastly, in this context, have the domestic authorities taken into account the relevant pensions-related regulations adopted in Kosovo?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality
Represented by
1.
20641/20
Selimi v. Serbia
22/04/2020
Abdurahim SELIMI 1939 Gnjilane Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
2.
20645/20
Drešaj v. Serbia
16/04/2020
Smajl DREÅ AJ 1943 Pristina Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
3.
28335/20
Å alja v. Serbia
05/06/2020
Avdi Å ALJA 1938 Pec Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
4.
28645/20
Gaši v. Serbia
30/06/2020
Ramadan GAÅ I 1940 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
5.
31135/20
Imeri v. Serbia
02/07/2020
Hasan IMERI 1933 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
6.
31194/20
Baša v. Serbia
08/07/2020
Špresa BAŠA 1941 Peć Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
7.
31718/20
Kicaj v. Serbia
15/06/2020
Murselj KICAJ 1941 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
8.
36062/20
Mulabazi v. Serbia
10/08/2020
Haki MULABAZI 1944 Orahovac Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
9.
42874/20
Kačaniku v. Serbia
14/08/2020
Đulizar KAČANIKU 1944 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
10.
44401/20
Foki v. Serbia
22/09/2020
Refki FOKI 1934 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
11.
45205/20
Rama v. Serbia
18/09/2020
Aćif RAMA 1938 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
12.
45259/20
Å ukri v. Serbia
29/09/2020
Ismet Å UKRI 1941 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
13.
48685/20
Ljaljoši v. Serbia
29/10/2020
Å emsidin LJALJOÅ I 1943 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
14.
55149/20
Å alja v. Serbia
04/12/2020
Maljuš ŠALJA 1934 Orahovac Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
15.
17287/21
Karjagdiu v. Serbia
25/03/2021
Nazlji KARJAGDIU 1943 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
16.
22489/21
Baša v. Serbia
21/04/2021
Ramadan BAŠA 1935 Peć Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
17.
37387/21
Gaši v. Serbia
30/06/2021
Đimšit GAŠI 1945 Prizren Serbian
Refija GARIBOVIĆ
[1] All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
