Published on 7 June 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 21826/16
Milena BANKOVIĆ
against Serbia
lodged on 11 April 2016
communicated on 20 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present application concerns the applicant’s inability to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in which the final civil court judgment which had been rendered in her favour was quashed and the case remitted to the second-instance court for re-examination. Ultimately, following the said re-examination, the applicant’s civil claim, involving various property issues, was dismissed by the national courts.
The applicant now complains under Article 6 of the Convention that, although she had had a strong interest in the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, she did not have the opportunity to participate in them.
The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the effect that the Constitutional Court’s decision to quash the final judgment rendered in her favour violated the principle of legal certainty particularly since that judgment had already been enforced. The applicant challenged the new second-instance decision before the Constitutional Court, but her appeal was dismissed on 16 December 2021.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected with regard to the fact that the applicant was not notified of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court nor of its decision adopted subsequently (see Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 53, 21 July 2009; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005‑V; and H.A.L. v. Finland, no. 38267/97, § 45, 27 January 2004)?
2. Was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court’s case-law under Article 6 of the Convention, complied with when a final judgment which had been rendered in the applicant’s favour had subsequently been quashed by the Constitutional Court and the matter ultimately adjudicated against her (see, for example, Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999‑VII, and Solomun v. Croatia, no. 679/11, §§ 46-48, 2 April 2015)?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a consequence of the said quashing of the final judgment which had been rendered in her favour (see, Brumărescu, cited above, §§ 69-80, and Solomun, also cited above, §§ 60-63)?