Europe – In a judgment dated November 18, 2025 (Application no. 53002/21), the European Court of Human Rights held that the demolition of a fence erected in 1964 by a company that had occupied the land prior to that date, and the eviction of the company without prior notice or access to procedural safeguards, constituted a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (absolute nature of the right to property).
Introduction
The case concerns the demolition and seizure of property owned and used by a Belgrade-based limited liability company (LLC), and the subsequent civil and constitutional proceedings. The applicant invoked Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Factual Background
The applicant company, originally State-owned in 1946 and later socially-owned, had been operating on land at 4-6 Hercegovačka Street, Belgrade, since 1964. A fence was erected on this land with municipal authorization. In 2010, the company was privatized and continued using the land, which had become State-owned.
Events of 2015
- 8 May 2015: The company’s fence was demolished without prior notice.
- 8 June 2015: The applicant filed a civil claim for protection of possession against Millennium Team DOO and Beograd na vodi DOO, alleging interference and requesting restoration of its possession.
- 24 June 2015: Millennium Team DOO occupied part of the land and began constructing a temporary fence; the applicant amended its claim to include this event.
- 30 September 2016: The municipal authorities revoked the company’s construction permit; the appeal is ongoing.
- 2017-2019: Commercial courts recognized interference with possession but initially limited restoration orders. In January 2019, a court ordered cessation of interference and restoration; in April 2019, the Appellate Court dismissed the restoration request citing legal and factual impossibilities, including the revoked permit and the public-use designation under the Belgrade Waterfront Spatial Planning Decree.
25 April 2016 Incident
Numerous structures in Savamala, including some of the applicant company’s buildings, were demolished. Investigations into these events are ongoing, but the Court considered them only as contextual background since they were not included in the applicant’s formal complaint.
Legal Framework
Key Serbian laws and regulations were relevant:
- Constitution of Serbia: Guarantees peaceful enjoyment of property.
- Property Act: Defines possession and provides protection against interference.
- Obligations Act: Provides for compensation or restoration when damage occurs.
- Civil Procedure Act: Ensures urgent proceedings for protection of possession.
- Enforcement Procedure Act: Limits enforceability of obligations beyond a debtor’s control.
- Planning and Construction Act: Regulates demolition and removal of buildings.
- Belgrade Waterfront Act: Establishes public interest for the Belgrade Waterfront project and sets expropriation rules.
- Spatial Planning Decree: Designates part of the area for public use.
- Administrative and Dispute Laws: Outline administrative appeals and enforcement procedures.
Domestic case law indicated that courts sometimes refused restoration of possession when impractical or contrary to public interest.
Court Assessment: Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Property Rights)
Applicability
- The Court determined that the applicant company’s case involved significant public-law elements due to the Belgrade Waterfront project and the government’s control over Beograd na vodi DOO, making the company’s actions attributable to the State.
- The company had “possession” of the land, not merely ownership, since it had used it continuously for over 50 years, initially established and tolerated by the State. This long-term, uninterrupted use conferred a proprietary interest protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
- The applicant pursued civil proceedings specifically designed to restore possession.
- Although alternative remedies existed (e.g., claims for damages), the Court concluded the applicant reasonably chose the urgent possessory procedure.
- Domestic courts’ rulings partially recognized the applicant’s rights, confirming interference with possession.
- The Constitutional Court did not reject the case for failure to pursue other remedies, supporting the applicant’s choice as reasonable.
Merits
- The interference—demolition of the fence and seizure of land—was acknowledged by domestic courts.
- Procedural guarantees were insufficient: the applicant was denied proper legal avenues to challenge the interference before or during demolition.
- Special legislation for the Belgrade Waterfront project did not absolve the State from providing procedural safeguards.
- The Court concluded the interference was unlawful, without needing to examine proportionality or public-interest justification.
- Result: Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Article 13 (Effective Remedy)
- No separate ruling was necessary, as the main legal issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been addressed.
Damages (Article 41 of the Convention)
- Pecuniary damage: Applicant claimed EUR 4,434,497 for lost lease income. Court found no causal link between the procedural violation and alleged pecuniary loss; claim dismissed.
- Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 220,000 claimed. Court awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary harm.
- Costs and expenses: EUR 11,873 claimed. Court awarded EUR 3,000 as reasonable reimbursement.
Interest: Simple interest applied from three months after the judgment until payment.
Conclusion / Judgment
- Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Admissible.
- Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Established.
- No separate ruling under Article 13 needed.
- Compensation awarded: EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
- Remaining claims for just satisfaction: Dismissed.
To access the judgment, follow the link : https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-246022%22]}.