Published on 22 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 42060/23
Nada JOVANOVIĆ
against Serbia
lodged on 10 November 2023
communicated on 4 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the rehabilitation proceedings brought by the applicant as regards her deceased relative’s conviction and the confiscation of his property by the Yugoslav communist authorities in the aftermath of World War II.
The applicant, as her relative’s successor, complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, of the unfairness of the said rehabilitation proceedings, and in particular the decision ultimately rendered against her because of the absence, in the rehabilitation case file, of the actual judgments and files resulting in her relative’s conviction. The applicant attempted to obtain this documentation, but to no avail. At the same time, various other documents regarding her relative’s conviction, as well as the confiscation of his property, were in fact provided or obtained in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant contends that, having regard to the applicable national legislation, it was incumbent upon the domestic courts to obtain, proprio motu, the judgments and files pertaining to her relative’s conviction. While the national courts apparently tried to do so, in the end, they were not successful.
The applicant lastly maintains that it was therefore impossible for her to demonstrate conclusively either the existence of a judgment on the basis of which her relative had been convicted or, conversely, to prove that no such conviction had ever been imposed.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
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, in the specific circumstances of the present case, the general principle of procedural fairness respected when it came to the national courts’ ultimate decision to rule against the applicant based on the absence, in the rehabilitation case file, of the actual judgments and files resulting in her relative’s conviction (see, mutatis mutandis, McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, and Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, §§ 146 and 149, 19 September 2017, with further references)?