Vesna PETROVIC v. Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is On September 8, 2026, he made, and on October 1 of the same year, announced the decision in the case VesnaPetrovic against Serbia, number 27905/24.

It's a decision brought three-member Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia- Directorate of Police- On July 15, 2019, the police administration in Nis issued decision 210-2/838, which rejects the request of the applicant, Mrs. Vesna Petrović (hereinafter: the applicant) for the registration of the "CZ-M70" pistol, cal. 7.65, fab. number 22071 from probate proceedings. By the same decision, the said gun was confiscated from the applicant together with the weapon list reg. number 11744 issued by the PU Niš, in the name of the late J.M., the applicant's mother. The applicant was ordered to alienate or disable the gun within one year, with the note that, if she does not do so within the specified period, the gun will become the property of the Republic of Serbia.

The applicant filed an appeal against the first-instance decision, which was rejected as unfounded by the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Police Directorate - Administration for Administrative Affairs by decision 03.6 number 210-1-688/19 of September 2, 2019.

The applicant then filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Department in Nis), which rejected the complaint with the judgment U. 16611/19 of February 21, 2022.

Against the second-instance decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the ruling of the Administrative Court, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected by decision Už-3564/2022 of May 14, 2024.

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on September 20, 2024.

In the petition, she complained that the second-instance decision and verdict did not specify the criteria and guidelines by which the decision-making body determined that her safety was not threatened, and that her right to property was violated by an arbitrary decision, because she inherited the weapon from her mother.

THE DECISION THE COURT

The court, first of all, noted that there was no dispute between the parties that confiscation of firearms from the applicant represented an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of her property, that it was legal (by direct application of the legal prohibition of possession of firearms without a permit) and that it aimed at the general interest - control over the possession of firearms and protection of public safety.

Furthermore, the Court assessed that it is not necessary to determine whether the interference represented deprivation of property, in the sense of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or the control of the use of property in the sense of the second paragraph of that provision, given that the principles relating to the question of justification are essentially the same.

The only question before the Court was whether the interference struck a fair balance between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the requirements of protecting the applicant's rights, taking into account, among other factors, the conduct of the firearm owner.

In this regard, the Court noted that the applicant voluntarily handed over to the police the inherited weapons for which she did not have a license to keep. The confiscation of weapons was therefore not an arbitrary or unpredictable act of the state, but the result of the applicant's disclosure of information and the discretionary right to confiscate her weapons.

The court further stated that the measure of confiscation of weapons from the applicant was not carried out without alternative solutions. Namely, the applicant was informed that she can disable or dispose of the weapon within one year of the decision becoming legally binding, in accordance with Article 28 of the Law on Arms and Ammunition (Official Gazette of the RS no. 20/15, 10/19, 20/20and 14/22).

The applicant claimed that the decision by which her weapon was confiscated was contradictory, because it foresees the possibility of alienating weapons that are not in her possession. However, the applicant presented that argument in the appeal procedure before the second-instance authority, and did not repeat it either in the procedure before the Administrative Court, the Constitutional Court, or in the petition submitted to the Court.

In addition to non-exhaustion of legal remedies, the Court did not accept this argument for the following reasons:first, the provision of Article 28 of the Law on Weapons and Ammunition provides the possibility of selling or disabling firearms even after their confiscation;second, the applicant did not try to use one of the other two legal options (disabling or alienating the weapon), so that she was prevented from doing so - she used only the first option - she submitted a request to keep the weapon.

Bearing in mind that the applicant could challenge the issuance of the permit before the competent authorities, the legality and predictability of the confiscation of weapons, the wide field of free assessment of the contracting states with regard to arms control, as well as the alternative possibilities that the applicant did not even try to use, the Court considers that the contested interference did not violate the fair balance required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, nor was an excessive burden imposed on the applicant.

Following the above, the Court dismissed the petition of the applicant rejected as obviously unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.