Communicated on 3 February 2021
Published on 22 February 2021
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 51211/16
The Foundation of King Peter I Karađorđević
against Serbia
lodged on 10 August 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant in the present case is the Foundation of King Peter I Karađorđević. The application concerns the allegedly unlawful deprivation of the foundation’s property, consisting mostly of agricultural land and vineyards, by the former communist authorities. It also concerns the subsequent civil proceedings which lasted for many years and only ended in 2016 when the domestic courts ruled that the applicant foundation was not the owner of the real estate in question, offering reasons which the latter describes as arbitrary. Also, according to the applicant foundation, no compensation for the said deprivation of property was ever given.
The application does not rely on Serbian legislation providing for the restitution of property nationalised by the former communist authorities. It maintains, instead, that there was never any domestic legal basis for the deprivation of the applicant foundation’s real estate and notes that the property in question belongs to the applicant foundation itself and not to any member of the royal family personally, whose property had indeed been nationalised.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are the applicant foundation’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 compatible with the provisions of the said Protocol, ratione temporis and/or ratione materiae (see, mutatis mutandis, Gottwald-Markušić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49049/06, 30 March 2010)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has the applicant foundation been deprived of its possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and/or in the absence of any compensation therefor?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the reasons given by the domestic courts in ruling against it, did the applicant foundation have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with the said provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, §§ 24 and 27 in fine, 9 April 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy