CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3136A51 { width:98.74%; border-collapse:collapse } .s5AFCE44B { width:7.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7277B24C { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6DE99F78 { width:26.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85C470FA { width:18.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB7CD12E { width:28.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA43E462F { width:7.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7E2F6F42 { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s659AD20D { width:26.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59E6A1C6 { width:18.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s593122F1 { width:28.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27722/17 Krsta GIGIĆ and Milka GIGIĆ against Serbia lodged on 6 April 2017 communicated on 12 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The gravestone of applicants’ late daughter had been unlawfully damaged and removed by a third private person who was ultimately convicted in the criminal proceedings and sentenced to a suspended two months’ imprisonment. The applicants complain under Articles 6, 8 and 9 of the Convention about the refusal of the civil courts to recognise their right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the lack of statutory entitlement under Article 200 of the Obligations Act. The Constitutional Court dismissed ( odbacio ) the applicants’ constitutional appeal in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right of access to a court” in the determination of their civil rights and obligations? Having regard to the reasons given by the competent civil courts, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations (see, mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, §§ 24 and 27 in fine , 9 April 2013)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Drašković v.   Montenegro , no. 40597/17, 9 June 2020, and Elli Poluhas Dödsbo v.   Sweden , no. 61564/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ I)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of religion, contrary to Article   9 of the Convention?   Lastly, the Government are invited to submit information on the legal framework which govern the subject matter of the present case and the courts’ case-law and practice in this respect, in particular on the applicability of Article 200 of the Obligations Act in the context of civil compensation claims for non-pecuniary damage on the ground of a damaged gravestone.   APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Krsta GIGIĆ 1947 Serbian Koceljeva 2. Milka GIGIC 1949 Serbian Koceljeva