Published on 30 May 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 11789/21
Božidar SAVIĆ
against Serbia
lodged on 1 March 2021
communicated on 9 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the intended eviction from a social housing of the 65 years old, socially vulnerable, blind applicant with 100% physical disability rating determined by the relevant authorities, allegedly for failure to pay certain utility bills and without any adequate alternative accommodation or rehousing being allegedly available or offered by the State. On 29 March 2021 the Court decided to prolong the interim measure previously indicated on 1 March and extended on 12 March 2021, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, until the Government provide the Court with precise information and guarantees as to the arrangements to be made by the domestic authorities for securing an adequate alternative accommodation to the applicant.
The applicant raises various complaints concerning the intended eviction from his home and the events surrounding thereof. He invokes Articles 3 and 6, Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 75, 25 March 2014; and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 115-16, ECHR 2015)? In this respect, the parties are requested to provide documentary evidence and jurisprudence in support of their answers.
2. In the light of the Court’s case law of Larioshina v. Russia ((dec.), no. 56869/00, 23 April 2002) and Budina v. Russia ((dec.), no. 45603/05, ECHR 2009), does the state of indigence in which the applicant is found, being wholly dependent on State support and allegedly faced with official indifference in a situation of serious deprivation incompatible with human dignity, fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. If so, has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of his destitute and medical conditions? In particular, did the circumstances and manner in which the eviction orders were made and the proceedings to enforce them themselves amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment? Before deciding on his eviction, did the authorities consider the applicant’s claims that he would be rendered homeless or would lose ability to live in dignity?
4. In the light of the applicant’s claims about his vulnerability, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the eviction order was enforced (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 253, ECHR 2011; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 279, 28 June 2011, and Budina v. Russia (dec.), cited above)?
5. What are the legal grounds for the applicant’s eviction? Also, under which statutory conditions may socially vulnerable persons who have been rendered homeless be provided with emergency housing and/or alternative accommodation?
6. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, with regard to the intended eviction?
In view of the specific circumstances of the present case,
(i) what protective and/or preventive measures, if any, have been considered or undertaken by the authorities in order to prevent the applicant, affected by the eviction from his only home, from becoming homeless, specifically in view of his disability, age and destitute? In particular, has any form of alternative accommodation or other shelter been considered or offered to him? If so, comment on the adequacy of the offered alternative accommodation.
(ii) does the relevant legislation require from the competent authorities to examine proportionality of the impugned measure, taking into consideration the applicant’s rights and personal circumstances, in particular his serious vulnerability and precariousness, when deciding on his eviction? In any event, did the decision-making process provided the proportionality assessment and offered adequate safeguards to the applicant against disproportionate interference alleged by him (see, mutatis mutandis, Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, §§ 122-129, 24 April 2012, with further reference therein)?
7. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
8. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,
(i) were the competent administrative authorities independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
(ii) were the right to an adversarial hearing and the principles of equality of arms and legal certainty respected in the proceedings before the competent domestic authorities?
(iii) did he have a fair hearing inasmuch as the reason given by the competent authorities to evict him were legally valid ones (see, for example, Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 44, 9 April 2013)?
9. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If affirmative, has the applicant been deprived of his “possession” in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?