Communicated on 24 May 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 16332/18
Fata ORLOVIĆ and Others
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
lodged on 30 March 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present case has attracted a wide media attention in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the region. The applicants lived in the Srebrenica municipality until the genocide. Shortly after they left, a church was built on their land. In 2000 the land was restored to the applicants under Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, but the church was not removed.
In 2002 the applicants initiated civil proceedings against the Serbian Orthodox Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina asking for the removal of the church from their land. While the proceedings were pending, the Republika Srpska Government and the Serbian Orthodox Church began out-of-court negotiations with the applicants concerning the removal of the church. After an agreement was reached in January 2008, the applicants changed their claim in the civil proceedings asking for the recognition of the agreement’s validity. That claim was ultimately rejected. The final decision was given by the Constitutional Court on 28 September 2017 which, by 5 votes to 4, found that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The applicants invoke the same provisions in the present case alleging that they are prevented from effectively enjoying their possessions because the unlawfully built church has not yet been removed from their land.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. (a) Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
(b) If so, which of the rules of this provision is applicable in the present case?
(c) Has that interference been lawful, i.e. in accordance with national law and the quality requirements of accessibility and foreseeability flowing from the autonomous meaning given to the notion of lawfulness in the Court’s case-law?
(d) Has it been effected in a public interest and, if so, which one(s)?
(e) Has it struck a “fair balance” between any such public interest and the applicants’ personal proprietary interests; in this connection, has there been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised and have the applicants been brought to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 134, ECHR 2004‑XII)?
2. Were the domestic courts’ decisions contrary to Article 6 of the Convention (see Barać and Others v. Montenegro, no. 47974/06, 13 December 2011, and Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, 9 April 2013)?
No.
Applicant
Birth year
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Fata ORLOVIĆ
1942
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Fata AHMETOVIĆ
1969
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Zlatka BAŠIĆ
1976
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Rahima DAHALIĆ
1978
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Mirsada EHLIĆ
1973
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Murtija HODŽIĆ
1982
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Melka MEHMEDOVIĆ
1975
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Muška MEHMEDOVIĆ
1970
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Hasan ORLOVIĆ
1972
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Abdurahman ORLOVIĆ
1968
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Ejub ORLOVIĆ
1980
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Fatima ORLOVIĆ
1980
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Šaban ORLOVIĆ
1966
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Senija ORLOVIĆ
1974
Srebrenik
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Fahrija Karkin
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy