Ruža Mladjenovic v. Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 13. Maja 2025. brought, and 5. June of the same year announced a decision in the case Mladjenovic v. Serbia, No. 57776/16.

The decision is brought The three-member committee.

Circumstances Case

Private investors submitted a requirement for the issuance of a building permit in connection with the plot near the applicant's house. According to the Government, the applicant is 15. January 2008 years  requested insight into the relevant case file. She did not submit any submission, nor demanded to participate in the process of issuing a building permit as a stakeholder.

Secretariat for Urbanism and Construction Affairs (hereinafter: "Secretariat") is 7. February 2008. issued a building permit to investors.

The applicant is 22. July 2008. challenged the decision of the Secretariat from 7. February 2008. years. Her appeal is 7. August 2008. Defended because she was untimely submitted. According to the Government, the Secretariat was not able to submit this decision to the address, and published it on his ad panel.

It was the applicant in 2009. initiated the proceedings before the Administrative Court due to "Study of the Administration", ie. Due to the failures of the competent authorities to consider her appeal against the decision from 7. February 2008. years. The Administrative Court is 23. July 2011. He ruled in favor of the applicant, ordering the Ministry of Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning to examine her appeal as a second instance authority.

Dana 1. November 2011. The Secretariat rejected the applicant's appeal again because it was untimely submitted. The applicant appealed this decision. The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure is 2. December 2014. ordered the Secretariat to examine the complaint of the applicant. In response to an additional request regarding the applicant's appeal, she explained that her appeal needs to be interpreted as a proposal for repetition of the proceedings - an extraordinary remedy.

The Secretariat held the debate on May 28, 2015 years. The applicant and her lawyer were present and presented their arguments and comments, and subsequently submitted submissions in which they repeated their argumentation. The Secretariat is 25. March 2016. He refused a proposal for repetition of the procedure for issuing a building permit. The applicant appealed this solution. The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure has annulled the decision of 25. March 2016. years and returned the case to the Secretariat for reconsideration. According to the Government, the procedure is still ongoing.

In response to complaints, the applicant is 8. and 11. August 2008. he reviewed the documentation related to the construction project and visited the construction site on the plot near the applicant's house. The inspector has not identified any illegalities or irregularities.

After subsequent inspection, the inspector was 5. and 8. December 2008 ordered investors and the Contractor to suspend the works on the project to the issue of a new building permit, given the identified irregularities.

Investors are 26. December 2008 agreed to the applicants' requests with the height of the security fence and scaffolding at the location.

The inspector is 13. February 2009. stated that investors did not comply with its earlier decision and ordered the demolition of parts of the facility that raised the opposite of the construction permit.

The Secretariat for Property-Legal Affairs and Construction Inspection is 24. February 2009. He ordered the execution of the decision from 13. February 2009. years. Investors complained to the Ministry of Construction, Traffic and Infrastructure in this regard.

The Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure is 1. September 2016. annealed the decision of 24. February 2009. and returned to the Secretariat for Property-Legal Affairs and Construction Inspection for Retirement.

The construction inspector is 21. September 2016. visited the construction site. Referring to the issuance of a new building permit and the fact that the building is functionally open, the procedure was suspended.

Investors are 5. March 2010. submitted a request for approval of a part of a construction project that was not in line with the original construction permit. According to the Government, the applicant did not apply to participate in the proceedings. The Secretariat for Objects of Objects is 26. July 2011. issued a new (altered) building permit.

The Secretariat for Objects of Objects is 16. November 2011 approved the use of the building. It is 26. July 2011. submitted a constitutional complaint against this solution.

The Constitutional Court is 3. March 2016. Discarded the Constitutional Appeal to the applicant because he has not exhausted the existing remedies before the constitutional court filed the constitutional complaint. Specifically, it was at the applicant to complain to the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning on the Decision of 26. July 2011. years.

Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures

The applicant submitted court 17. September 2016. years.

In the petitions complained of a member's injury 6. Convention, believing that it could not be protected by its rights, that its numerous complaints were unsuccessful and that the decisions of the competent state bodies were contradictory and inconsistent.

Also, she also complained about a member's injury 8. Conventions and Article 1. Protocol No. 1. The Convention shall induce and impair its property, as a residential building is illegally built three meters from its house and views of her family of every vision of privacy. Finally, the applicant also called for a violation of the right under Article 13. Convention.

Decision Court

The Court did not accept the arguments of the applicant in connection with complaintsAccording to Article 6. Conventions assessing not sufficiently supported. Namely, the Court took into account the explanation of the Constitutional Court that the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies in terms of disputesing the new building permit to investors, ie that complaints regarding the original building permit did not even initiate before the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the court rejected this part of the application due toInexhausting domestic remedies.

In connection with complaints applicantsAccording to Article 8. ConventionThe court reminded the general principles in the application of this article, emphasizing that the alleged violation must reach a certain impact of the difficulty to enjoy home or private and family life, and that proving that threshold on the applicant. In the present case, the Court assessed that the applicant did not provide convincing evidence that the limited access to daylight, lack of privacy or a sheltered view of a new residential building in her vicinity, affected her home or private and family life. It has also not been proven that there were consequences for its physical or mental health. Only the existence of illegality in a certain phase of construction was not sufficient to determine the violation of Article 8. Convention, given that the investor has subsequently received a new building permit. The applicant had the opportunity to dispute the said solutions, but it did not do it. Same these arguments also apply to complaintsAccording to Member 1 Protocol number 1 with the Convention. Therefore, the Court rejected this part of the applicationas obviously unfounded.

Finally, the Court assessed that the applicant did not substantiate his claim to the violation of Article 13. Convention.

Consequently, the Court is the petition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 §. 1, 3 (a) and 4. Convention, rejected.