Jurisprudence ________________________________________ DENACIONALIZACIJA / RESTITUTION / INDEMNIFICATION THE NATIONALIZATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ACQUIRED ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW ITSELF, UNLIKE THE FORMAL TITLE, WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL AKT In contrast to the acquisition of property expropriation, which occurs on the individual decision of the competent authority, nationalization of property acquired pursuant to the law. Lower instance courts found that prosecutors owners of the mill motor seized from their legal predecessors, following the adoption of the Law on Nationalization of private economic enterprises and obligation of the respondent cooperatives to mill and land on which he built back. The decision on how they devised the circumstances that the previous owner has been issued a certificate of taking over the mill in terms of Article 16, paragraph 1 of the said law. This decision of the lower courts is not correct. Unlike expropriation, which is determined by an individual act adopted in accordance with the law, nationalization is done by the law itself. Therefore, in Article 1 of the nationalization of private economic enterprises and stipulates that a private company goes into state ownership - the date of entry into force of the law. Under the impact of nationalization were found, according to paragraph 29 of the article, and the company of the milling industry. Finally, the termination of private ownership of the disputed mill followed by the date of entry into force of the Act derives from its Article 15, Having nationalized state enterprises became the very act of nationalization, as determined and Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Act, the certificate of the delivery of Article 16, paragraph 1, had a constitutive relevance. Hence, its absence is not a sign that the nationalization in this case did not occur. This certificate has a declarative character, because it only confirms what has happened under the law. That is why for its existence or non-existence can not bind the existence or non-existence of nationalization. It exists under the law and has already said that the law on nationalization of private enterprises 1946. Performed and the nationalization of businesses milling industry. Accordingly, prosecutors, as followers of the previous owner, I can not stand the ownership claims of the present holder of nationalized mills, or may request its return. In view of the above, this Court, pursuant to Article 395, paragraph 1 of the CAP, reversed the lower court's judgment and dismissed both claims. (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Serbia, rev. 1086/96 of 03.20.1996.) FULL COVERAGE PROPERTY CONFISCATION OF ALL ASSETS OF THE CONVICTED PERSON For complete confiscation of property owned by the convicted person and his family remains the only such property that is expressly exempt from confiscation, and all other assets, whether listed or not, shall be deemed forfeit and as such public property. According to the court records, a final judgment of the Supreme Court of the People's Republic of Serbia on 10 October in 1946., The legal predecessor of prosecutors was sentenced to confiscation of all assets, subject to the restriction in Article 4 of the Law on confiscation of property and execution of confiscation (Official Gazette of the SFRY, no. 61/46). So, it's a complete seizure of property without compensation to the State in terms of Article 1, paragraph 1 of the said Act. The judgment of the District Court of 8 July in 1953. Was that coercive executed, it is marked fixed assets confiscated the legal predecessor of prosecutors and transferred to state ownership FNRJ. Are exempt from confiscation accurately and thoroughly marked movables and a sum of money that is left konfiskantu and members of his immediate family in the sense of Article 4 of the said Act. Not accepted konfiskanta request that he be granted the status of a farmer, because the court found that he nor any of his immediate family were never engaged in farming, and on that basis it does not belong to the minimum land holding with house and garden nor his daughter in law and grandchildren recognized as members of his immediate family. In view of the above, the lower instance courts have ignored the facts relating to the portion that remains konfiskantu. Namely, complete confiscation of property, as is the case here, in having convicted and

his family passes only those assets that are expressly exempt from confiscation, and all other assets, whether listed or not, shall be deemed forfeit and as such public property . The conclusion of the courts, it is doubtful basement left konfiskantu to the same lives with his family, relying on Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Law on confiscation of property and execution of confiscation, which stipulates that in the event of the confiscation of houses in the town where she lived with convicted immediate family, will be provided to the prisoner and his family apartment essential for life, either confiscated or in another house, and under paragraph 3 when determining the assets described in this article has left the prisoner and his immediate family, the court shall take into account the circumstances in each case, and the local economic conditions, has not yet reliable. True, in the third paragraph of the operative part of the judgment referred to the District Court, the duty of all housing authorities to convict and his family have an apartment is necessary for life, namely: either confiscated, or in any other building. However, it is unclear whether there was a dispute basement when the house was confiscated intended or used for the housing, keeping in mind that the apartment is considered a set of rooms intended to serve the housing needs of the users, which, as a rule, make unit with a single master input, a secondary dwelling is considered to be the apartment in its purpose or in its structure, the position of the building and the comfort is the side of the building. However, if it were not so, but said premises are solely the basement and in their purpose and position, then he can not be the subject of condominium, but a common part of the building that serves as an entirety or only specific parts of her. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Serbia, rev. 454/06 of 28 March 2007). LEGAL EFFECT CONFISCATION DECISION LAND NOT EXTEND TO THE LAND UNDER EXISTING FACILITIES Decision on confiscation, although it contains information that confiscated the entire surface of the cadastral parcels, but the plot other buildings of the former owner who did not confiscated, no legal effect with respect to the land on which the building is located and which is used for the regular use of facilities. Trial court found that the conclusion of the district court on 4 12 in 1945. Allowed the execution of the transfer of property confiscated by the sentence of a court following his confiscated property of the former owner, and that is the subject of confiscation was real estate, which consists of two stores and a cadastral the land on which the shops are located. On this plot there are facilities that are the subject of this claim as separate buildings. Trial Court correctly found, as usual, and not disputed by the respondent of the Republic of Serbia, the present buildings were subject to confiscation, in the first instance correctly determined how the prosecutor of the legal successor of the previous owner acquired ownership of the facility, and to among litigants was not in dispute. In such a situation, the district court finds that the trial court correctly applied the law when it found that the plaintiff is the owner of the land on which the building is located and which is necessary for normal use of buildings. Although, according to the decision on confiscation of seized whole lot, considering that the same are other facilities that were not confiscated, and given the rule that the land on which the building is located and which is used for the regular use of a building shared legal fate of the building, comes to the plot and could not be seized, nor is essentially a subject of confiscation, from which it is evident that the conclusion that the claim of plaintiff as a whole is established. (Judgment of the District Court in Valjevo, Gz. 248/05 of 17 3 2005) PROPERTY CONFISCATED ARE NOT INVESTING IN LEGACY KONFISKANTA When the legal predecessor prosecutor seized the disputed real property confiscation, the same could not be subject to inheritance where the deceased was seized real property confiscation. The judgment of the Municipal Court in Cajetina P. no. 517/01 of 21 08 2002nd year, was rejected as unfounded the claim that plaintiff is that the defendant has the right to use on land parcel belonging to KO Čajetina. Appeal against the said judgment of the said plaintiff; noting in particular that the substantive law of the trial court incorrectly applied. The District Court in Uzice in its judgment Gž. br. 364/03 14 03 2003rd rejected as unfounded the appeal of a judgment of the Municipal Court in Cajetina P. no. 517/01 of 21 08 2002nd confirmed. The explanation of the second instance verdict stated the following: There is no doubt that the decision of the District

Court in Cajetina no. 8/46 on the legal predecessor prosecutor confiscated building-villa with Inventory and Payroll. The person is declared the decision of the Second District Court in Belgrade from 15 05 in 1956. Was missing and found to his death from the 16th day of 05 in 1946. Was. It was also found that the said land is converted into a public property in 1948., And registered in the name of the defendant, and that the possession of the said plot plaintiff never was. In this way, the said assets could be subject to an inheritance of late, because it was passed into public property by the decision of a state authority. The deceased whose property was taken by his wife, who died in 1983., And a daughter who died in 1993., And whose son prosecutor. Expired deadlines obsolescence claim the inheritance of the deceased and applying the law of succession in 1955. Federal Republic and the Law of Succession in in 1974. Was. (Judgment of the District Court in Uzice, Gz. 364/03 of 14 3 2003). DENACIONALIZACIJA CAN NOT APPLY TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL BECAUSE PROPERTY WAS SEIZED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF SERBIA

In disputes for restitution of property confiscated in the process of nationalization is not possible to violations of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, guaranteed by Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to achieve restitution, because the violation of the right to property in case of nationalized property made before the Convention enters into force in respect of Serbia and Montenegro, it is not a continuing violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The eventual statement of claim, the plaintiff seeks to establish that he was subject real property seized by the conditions laid down in Article 1, paragraph 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol), which is violated right guaranteed by Article 1 of the Protocol to the peaceful enjoyment of property. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) made in Rome 4.11.1950. and adopted by the Council of Europe. Our country has signed the Convention on 3.4.2003. year. Law on ratification of the said Convention Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro was adopted 26.12.2003. year. Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Protocol provides that any natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Protocol provides that the foregoing provisions, however, do not in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. According to the European Court of Human Rights, Article 1 of the Protocol contains three clearly defined rules. The first and most important requirement of Article 1 of the Protocol is to mix some public authorities to peaceful enjoyment of property to be lawful. The second sentence of the first paragraph allows the deprivation of possessions "under the conditions provided for by law", while the second paragraph recognizes the right of states to regulate the use of property through enforcement "of the law." In addition, the law on which it is based interference must be in accordance with the domestic law of a Contracting State, including the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto may be applied only to events that occurred after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of a State Party (Article 59 § 3), except in the case of a violation of rights guaranteed by the Convention occurred before its entry into the legal force for the State concerned, and runs continuously in the period thereafter. The correct conclusion is that the lower courts unfounded claim plaintiff to establish that the property seized by the conditions laid down in Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Protocol, which is violated the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The claim plaintiff refers to an event that occurred before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia prior to its ratification by the SCG, which is why there are no conditions for the application of the Convention or the Protocol, to which the prosecutor calling in his complaint. In addition, in this particular case it is

not a continuing violation because the seizure of assets is considered a one-off act, and the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights (decision Papuk trade DD, against Croatia, the number of Appl. 2780/03, in which he expressed the view that the seizure of property is considered the current act), which correctly concluded the lower instance courts. Properly denied plaintiff's request for a determination of ownership of the subject property because there is no legal basis for the acquisition of property in favor of the plaintiff, and the facts on which the plaintiff bases his claim in these proceedings, that his property has been taken contrary to the provisions of the Law on Nationalization and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol i can not be the basis for approval of the claim with respect to the impossibility of applying the provisions of the Convention and the Protocol, and the lack of other legal rules which would allow reconsideration of the decision of the nationalized assets or return of such confiscated property. The Republic of Serbia has adopted a law on denationalization and restitution, which would resolve ownership status of a large number of citizens and legal persons in the measures of nationalization, confiscation and other measures, after the Second World War, the confiscated property. When it enacted law on denationalization and restitution claimant will be able to exercise the right to confiscated property in a manner and under conditions that are required by the law. (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Serbia, rev. 971/07 of 6.9.2007) NATIONALIZED PROPERTY DOES NOT INVEST IN THE ESTATE PERSONS FROM ANY FOLDED Heir to the person whose property was nationalized, there is no legal basis to claim confiscated property, or to seek to establish that the owner of the nationalized property. From the state of the record comes to the content of the claim determination izlučnog rights prosecutor in the property described in the claim and its implementation, and the contents of a petition for a temporary injunction, preventing the detrimental consequences for the proposer, in the form of banning the controversial immobility by the respondent . The prosecutor's complaint alleged that the owner based on the heritage of the cadastral lot 6842, the so-called. "Village" and to the garden apartment building, measuring 3.49 acres on the same plot of land under the building with an area of 1.56 acres, with residential building of the same size and the same plot, all registered in the possession list number. 341 KO O. defendant during the proceedings challenged the claim of plaintiff, because the defendant as a holder of property on said property, and on the basis of the decision on nationalization. Among the litigants is an undeniable fact that the plaintiff is a user specified parcels of public property, which was nationalized by the above solution. The decision on nationalization has been found that the 26.12.1958. The nationalized the entire tenement office building together with the land in O, located at KP no. 6842 ... a total area of 115.5 m2, with the area of the plot is 0.05 ha and the same has become public property. This property was co-owned SJ and SV The prosecutor heir of the late SJ The prosecutor attached to the complaint submitted probate court decision, an excerpt from the list of assets, the conclusion of the District Court in F, R 470/46-2 and request for recognition of the right to return rights to use the nationalized buildings, filed so z. and registered under no. 462-15/04-03 of 19.1.2004. year. Correct the Trial Court concluded that these documents without affecting the decision in this matter. In this state of things, the trial court properly dismissed the claim as unfounded, for reasons that were accepted by the court. The indisputable fact is that the real estate of which the plaintiff seeks the determination of rights of property, nationalized and that are public property. The above solution of nationalization still have legal effect, because there has passed a law on de-nationalization of assets, and other regulations stipulate the return of seized property in the process of nationalization. National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia on 23.5.2005. adopted the Law on registration of expropriated property, but as I said the name of the law, it regulates the procedures for reporting and recording of assets, which is in the territory of the Republic of Serbia confiscated without compensation in the form of market value or fair compensation, enforcement of regulations and laws on nationalization , agrarian reform, confiscation, expropriation and other regulations adopted and of applied after 03/09/1945. year. Article 9 of the Law on registration of confiscated property, provided that the legal basis of the right to the return of property or compensation in respect of the

seized property registered under the provisions of the said law, as well as the procedure for the application for the exercise of the right to restitution or compensation for those assets to be regulated by a special law. From the results it follows, as correctly concluded by the Trial Court, that there was no legislation to regulate the process of returning the seized property, the plaintiff, as successor to the person whose property was nationalized, there is no legal basis to claim confiscated property, or to seek to establish that the owner of the nationalized property. In addition, the Trial Court correctly concluded that the probate court decision, which found for the plaintiff's successor, irrelevant, and the fact that the cadastral operate the property in question leads to the prosecutor. The above mentioned reasons, because the same is not a sufficient legal basis for the acquisition of title to the disputed real estate. The correct conclusion is that the plaintiff failed to prove that the decision on nationalization modified or revoked by the competent authority, and it follows that listed social immobility, no matter what, as such, is not conducted in public records. In this state of affairs, the Trial Court correctly concluded that the claim is without merit, and therefore the plaintiff's proposal for an interim measure to ensure non-monetary claims, all in accordance with Article 302 of the Law on Enforcement. (Judgment of the High Commercial Court, PZ. 9455/05 of 29.12.2005) CONSTITUTION OF 1974 NO LIMIT PROPERTY RIGHT AFTER PA 1974 IS NOT POSSIBLE NATIONALIZATION RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES After the entry into force of the Constitution of the SFRY in 1974. Was, I can not run away or take actions for the nationalization of housing and business premises. Founded in lawsuits filed indicates that in this case there were no conditions for the adoption of the contested decision. This is because there were no conditions for the implementation of the Law on Nationalization of rental buildings and building land after the adoption of the Constitution of the SFRY in 1974. Year, and then the amendment 23 to the Constitution of the SFRY Law on Amendments to the Law on Basic Property Rights ("Fig. SFRY "br.36.90) and the Law on Personal work. The Constitution of the SFRY in 1974. Was not anticipated limitations on the acquisition of property for residential houses and apartments, commercial buildings and offices, as well as Amendment 23 to the Constitution of the SFRY, which guaranteed the right of ownership of the said immovable property, without limitations on the scope of this rights. Complimenting the SFRY Constitution and Amendment 23 to the Constitution of the SFRY Law on Amendments to the Law on Basic Property Rights omits previously predicted limits, as is the case with the right of ownership of business premises, which are limited by law in the manner the law regulated. Thus, the termination of restrictions on the acquisition of title to residential buildings and apartments, office buildings and business premises, exclude the application of the Law on Nationalization of rental buildings and building land, and thus initiating or completing the unfinished and procedures. (Decision of the Federal Court WISS. 210/95).

RETURN OF PROPERTY TO CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES NOT ACHIEVED THROUGH COURT BUT BEFORE THE LAW TO EXPECTED STATE ORGAN-DIRECTORATE FOR RESTITUTION Assets held churches confiscated by the Law on Nationalization of rental buildings and building land, with the adoption of the Law on Restitution (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities, by operation of law does not exist as church property or terminated state property, but decides Directorate for Restitution , by the rules of administrative proceedings against whose decision an administrative dispute. The judgment of the Municipal Court approved the claim of plaintiff and determined that the Republic of Serbia the owner of the disputed property, which the defendant (parish) shall admit and allow the registration of state ownership in the public records. Appellate court rejected as unfounded the appeal of the respondent and the first instance verdict was upheld. According to the established facts, the disputed property can be found in the possession of social entities after the Second World War, while in the public registers (Land Registry) registered as the property of the respondent as a civil entity. By a final decision of the Commission for NO from 01/10/1959. The, the disputed property was nationalized and became public property. On such established facts correctly

applied the law when it approved the claim for utrvrđenje and registration of state ownership in the public records. The acquisition of public property under the Law on Nationalization of rental buildings and building land ('' Fig. Gazette SFRY'', no. 52/58, 3/59 24/59 and 24/61) is a form of originarnog acquisition (where the property of the predecessor is not decisive fact), and registration of property rights is not constitutional for declaratory character (the property is acquired in the law). The prosecutor had no legal interest in finding the right property and registration in public registers, because the fact of nationalization disputes. Unfounded the audit allegations that the appellate court was required to reverse the first instance judgment and reject the claim because it was in the period after the conclusion of the trial passed the Law on Restitution (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities, under which the right to social (state) property not . In fact, some provisions of law that are not clear may be interpreted differently temporal (historical interpretation) in accordance with the new spiritual values, changes in the political system, changing morals, philosophical beliefs, traditions, religions and cultural values, but the court has no authority to waive the application of any law whether (judge) believes that the law is unfair or unethical. Such a decision can be taken legislative body or the Constitutional Court in the proceedings of assessing the constitutionality and legality. In this issue, the legislator nor the Constitutional Court did not repeal law on nationalization of rental buildings and building land, regardless of the fact that after the conclusion of the trial in this lawsuit enacted the Law on restitution (restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities ('' Official . Gazette'', no. 46/06). The law automatically are removed created consequences of nationalization. The property which was confiscated churches under the previous law by virtue of the new law, there are no church property (state owned or terminated). In accordance with the principles contained in Article 2 of the Law, the Church can, in principle, to return the property in kind, but it can provide benefits in the form of other relevant assets or the payment of cash market value if the return in kind or in the form of other relevant assets not possible (Article 4). Concretization of the principal provisions made in the following text of the law (Article 20). The procedure for exercising the right leads Directorate for Restitution (Article 21), the rules of administrative procedure and is against the decision of the Directorate can not be appealed, but an administrative dispute (Article 32). From the above it follows that a regular court in the case brought to the fortress, and the objection of the respondent religious communities can not assess whether the conditions for termination of the right of state ownership and property rights civil constitution of the legal entity, taking into account the contents of the said Act on the Restitution of it has no jurisdiction. The court's decision (and audit) does not prevent the exercise of the rights which he may be sued at the request of the Directorate (already as it comes from the contents of the audit was submitted), but may result in a preliminary matter that the administrative procedure can be set. (Judgment of the Supreme Court, rev. 1513/10 of 1 9 2010) PRIVATIZATION NATIONALIZED PROPERTY The legislature has the power to prescribe a special regime for the privatization of nationalized property, including the question of funds paid to the former owners of nationalized property. In assessing the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of Article 15 of the Law on Privatization ('' Official Gazette of RS'', no. 38/01...i 123/07)., Which regulates the privatization of nationalized property, the Constitutional Court said that, with given the manner in which the assets become the subject of community, or state property, legislative body empowered to prescribe a special mode of its conversion into private property, including the issue of the funds paid to the former owners of nationalized property. This position of the Constitutional Court based on constitutional provisions from which it follows that the return of property seized by the former regulations is not constitutionally guaranteed right, and Republic of Serbia regulates and provides property and contractual relations and protection of all forms of ownership. Therefore, the Constitutional Court did not accept the initiative in the process of establishing the unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Act. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, U-No. 82/05 17 4 2008).

LEGALITY OF DECISION ON NATIONALIZED PROPERTY CAN NOT BE SUBSEQUENTLY REVIEWED IN A COURT PROCEEDING When a decision on nationalization of property taken pursuant to the then applicable regulations become final and can not be later in the proceedings to question the legality of the decision of the nationalized property. The Supreme Court examined the impugned judgment pursuant to Article 491, paragraph 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 386 of the previous Law on Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the previously applicable LCP) and found that the revision of the plaintiff has not been established. In the proceedings is an essential violation of civil proceedings under Article 354, paragraph 2, item 11) before the current CAP to which the Supreme Court ex officio. There is not a substantial violation of Article 354, paragraph 2, item 14) before the current CAP to which the points in the audit because the contested decision contains the reasons of the relevant facts. Reasons for revision of an error of substantive law to be established. According to the stipulated facts, the trial, on charges of nationalization administrative organ for Finance NOO NS from 19/05/1959. , the solutions and the Commission for the nationalization of the NOC Municipality NS from 09/16/1959. was determined that the building at Z. J. br. 20 and 22 in the NS, which belonged to the plaintiff, nationalized on 12/25/1959. year, and will be entered in the land register as public property and ordered the First Sredska Court in NS to carry out the registration of ownership in the Land Register. The application for nationalization as owner of the building in NS at Z. J. br. 20 referred to the prosecutor, and stated that the same ground floor, three-bedroom apartments, one two bedroom apartment, two separate rooms, one store and four business premises and buildings accounted for 22 ground floor, three-bedroom apartments, two four-room apartment , a warehouse, and sixteen of the premises, in addition to the application it is stated that the first floor of the building no. 22 used plaintiff as business premises and two rooms for two of its officers. The reasoning of the decision on nationalization said to have met all the conditions for the nationalization of the subject property set forth in Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Law on Nationalization of rental buildings and building land (hereinafter referred to as the Act) because it is about buildings that are owned by the civil-face and are subject to nationalization. This solution became final on 12/03/1959. year. Decision NOO NS, the Commission for the nationalization of 25/01/1960. years of nationalized buildings in NS at Z. J. br. 20, shall be excluded and leave the property the previous owner of the premises on the first floor and three offices, conference deliberations, library, salon reception hall for disciplinary trials, one room, archives and hall and one room for housing officers, while plaintiff's request for a waiver of the nationalization of two-bedroom apartment in the same building rejected. Commission's decision to nationalize the IOC Sreza NS from 05/29/1961. , amended the earlier decision taken by 25/11/1960. year, so we are exempt from the nationalization of three rooms on the first floor brackets no. 20, of which two are used for residential and one for the kitchen. Counsel has determined compensation for nationalized property and established payments in equal monthly installments starting from 01/01/1959. in the next fifty years. Property in Z. J. Street. 20 in NS is registered in the land registry cartridge number 4 .. KO NS II as a senior housing building and garden that consists of commercial premises owned by plaintiff on the first floor and four-bedroom apartments, a separate room, a warehouse and four business areas, which are public property with right of use in favor of the Municipality NS Property in NS at Z. J. br. 22, area of 14 acres and 02 m2, registered land sheet no. 1, KO NS II, as well as field and garden owned by the state with the right of use in favor of the City of NS The present facts, the lower instance courts correctly applied the law when they rejected the primary and any claims plaintiff to establish that the decision of the competent authorities on the nationalization of his property contrary to law, that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the seizure of property made by the prosecutor conditions prescribed Article 1, paragraph 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Prosecutor primary statement of claim seeks to establish the contrary and without legal effect court order about the nationalization of the subject property. Plaintiff's request is properly denied, because the decision on nationalization of assets prosecutor made under Article 12 of the Law by the competent authority. The decision on nationalization is final, and the applicable regulations of the Republic of Serbia does not give the basis that the court proceedings

subsequently review the legality of decisions of nationalized property and assess the correctness of the application of Article 12 of the Act, under which the plaintiff seized property. For these reasons, wrongfully in the audit Prosecutor decision is to refute the erroneous application of the law. (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Serbia, rev. 971/07 of 6.9.2007)

THE FACT THAT CERTAIN ISSUES IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LAW ON PROPERTY RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION ARE ARRANGED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CONSIDER APPLICANTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, NOT THE SUBJECT OF WHICH IS COMPETENT TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Given that the provisions of Art. 1 and 2, Article 5, paragraph 1, Art. 6, 30 and 31 of the Act challenging because they are, in the opinion of the initiator, incomplete, or what specific issues are regulated in such a way as to consider applicants initiatives, such as the allegations that, rather than the date of 9 mart in 1945., The from which recognizes the right to return or compensation, should take an earlier date, the list of rules by which the property was seized under Article 2 of the Act is not complete, they are referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Act, which sets out the persons who are entitled to restitution and compensation, excluded funds, foundations and endowments, or their successors, as well as testamentalni heirs, and proposed deleting the word "legal" in the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, item 1), that Article 6 of the Act should not be to refer to the property that was confiscated, that the provisions of Art. 30 and 31 of the Act are required by all of the elements on which to base the calculation of the compensation to be made, the Constitutional Court, according to Article 167, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Constitution, is not competent to deal with requests to review the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Act because certain issues are not regulated, or not regulated in the way suggested by the applicants initiatives, and rejected the initiative filed in the above section. The Constitutional Court also does not have jurisdiction under Article 167 of the Constitution, the conformity of the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, item 1) the challenged law with the Law of Succession ("Official Gazette of RS", no. 46/95 and 101 / 03) and the Law on Non-Contested procedure ("Official Gazette of RS", no. 25/82, 48/88, 46/95, 18/05 and 65/12). For these reasons, the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 1, item 1) of the Constitutional Court decided as the item. 2 and 3 of the order. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-429/2011 of 18.04.2013.godine)

OLD (SEIZED) PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE CLAIMED ONLY WHEN THE STATE PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A "LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION" CAN BE ACHIEVED, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXIST UNTIL THE ABOVE IT CAN NOT ESTABLISH A CLAIM (POSITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SERBIA IN REJECTING THE INITIATIVE FOR ASSESSING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW ON RESTITUTION / RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY TO CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES). The reasoning of the decision: The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia does not explicitly entitled to restitution of property, or obligation of the legislator to regulate denationalization (restitution), and such right does not guarantee nor the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Convention guarantees the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property, which includes the prohibition of confiscation, or restricting the right of ownership and other property rights of any kind without compensation. As the Convention does not apply retroactively, it is therefore not determined by the state's obligation in terms of eliminating violations of property rights that could arise before its entry into force. The concept of property, pursuant to the provisions of the Convention, includes not only the right of ownership of immovable and movable property and investments in them, but also a claim upon which it has a legitimate expectation that they can gain the effective enjoyment of a property right. However, this provision of the Convention guarantees rights only in relation to the existing property and does not include the right to acquire the property because the property does not exist until over it can not establish a claim. Hope you will recognize the old property right, which for a long time could not be effectively enjoyed, not an asset in terms of the provisions of the said Convention. For exercising rights under the above

provisions of the Convention is necessary to have "at least a legitimate expectation" of certain property rights can not be realized, a legitimate expectation exists only when the Contracting States shall prescribe the conditions under which it expects to achieve, while the Contracting States are not limited in terms of prescribing the conditions under which the return property that was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. I-Uz.119/2008 of 20.04.2011.godine -'' Official Gazette of RS ", No. 44/2011)

ONE CAN NOT SPEAK OF A VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION UNDER VARIOUS LAWS From the above provisions of the Constitution, the finding of the Constitutional Court, it follows that the Constitution allows for the possibility that the social or state ownership resulting original right way of acquiring property - an act of the state (laws, bylaws or individual act) may, by an act of the state (in this case the law) , change the form of ownership, ie. to be returned to private ownership, under the conditions prescribed by law. This further means that there is a constitutional authority that challenged the law regulates the conditions, manner and procedure of restitution and compensation for expropriated property, where it must be borne in mind that this is a property that has been seized on the basis of previously existing constitution and regulations, which means that for such a taking of property no legal basis, and is in this sense a logical determination of the legislator to establish a right to restitution of property in kind, or return the property to the former owner in the ownership or possession of or the granting of compensation for expropriated property can not be returned in kind, as provided by the challenged provisions. 4 and 8 of the Act. The above provisions of the Act are being challenged because, in the opinion of the initiator, the persons who are entitled to restitution under this law discriminated against in relation to other categories of persons who are entitled to restitution under other regulations. On the issue of violation of the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitutional Court started from the realization of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the right flowing from Article 14 of the European Convention and relates to the enjoyment the rights and freedoms set forth in the same convention, without any discrimination, in violation of a Contracting State when they treat persons in analogous situations, and that without providing an objective and reasonable justification. However, the understanding of the European Court of Human Rights, this right is violated when the Contracting States without an objective and reasonable justification for not treating differently persons who are in very different situations. Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that the persons who are entitled to restitution under other regulations are in vastly different situations, which are regulated by these regulations, as is, for example, in the case of returning agricultural land to persons who are entitled to the return of property or compensation for the challenged law, and therefore can not be considered that these categories of people at a disadvantage, because, on the contrary, the same treatment in different situations mean fundamental inequalities in the exercise of the rights in question. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-429/2011 of 18.04.2013.godine)

PROTOCOL NO. 1. THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IMPOSES ON THE CONTRACTING STATES ANY GENERAL OBLIGATION ON THE RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY (THE RIGHT TO A REFUND, THE SCOPE AND TERMS OF REPAYMENT) THAT THE FORMER OWNERS OF CONFISCATED BEFORE THEY RATIFIED THE CONVENTION Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 can be interpreted as the Contracting States impose any general obligation to return the property that was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention. Also, Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 does not impose any restrictions on the freedom of a Contracting State to determine the scope of property restitution and to choose the conditions under which they agree to return the property rights of former owners

(Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case in Jantner. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003).

THE LEGISLATURE HAS FLEXIBILITY WITH REGARD TO THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF FORMER OWNER OF THE AWARD (RESTITUCIJSKIH) RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHT TO NON-DISCRIMINATION VIOLATES WHEN TREAT DIFFERENTLY PERSONS IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE GIVEN AN OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH TREATMENT The Constitutional Court took into account the legal opinion of the European Court of Human Rights regarding violations of the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which the right under Article 14 of the European Convention and relates to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention without any discrimination in violation when the Contracting States treat differently persons in analogous situations, and without providing an objective and reasonable justification for such treatment. However, the understanding of the European Court of Human Rights, this right is violated when the Contracting States without an objective and reasonable justification for not treating differently persons who are in very different situations. The European Court of Human Rights, in its case, and expressed his legal opinion, according to which the state generally enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of methods and measures that they intend to achieve a legitimate objective, especially when it comes to significant economic and social changes, such as the denacionalizacija. Thus, the issue of the right to compensation based on nationalized property, in cases of Vyasa v. Romania (judgment of 9 December 2008th year), and Mary Athanasius and others v. Romania (judgment of 12 October 2010.), The European Court, the since concluded that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as well as the fact that it is still constantly increasing number of applications from Romania, found it necessary to point out the need to take general measures, which "includes the review and reform of legislation to establish a predictable pattern compensation, determine the upper limit of compensation and making payments in installments over a period of time. Given that the impact of such a plan the whole country is certainly important, the Romanian authorities must retain full autonomy and freedom of choice of appropriate measures. "In this case (Vyasa against Romania), the Court made clear that "States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in implementing the policy and legislative policy relating to the significant economic and social change, and that is, when it is determined that there is violation (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), in principle, the state that has to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation. "If Kopecky v. Slovakia, the European Court expressed the view that "Article 1 of Protocol 1 can be interpreted as the Contracting States impose any obligation to return the property that was transferred to them before they ratified the Convention. Moreover, Article 1 of Protocol 1 does not impose any restriction on the freedom of Contracting States to determine the scope of property restitution and to choose the conditions under which they agree to return the property rights of former owners (Jantner in. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4 March 2003. year ). should be noted that the Contracting States enjoy a lot of flexibility with regard to the exclusion of certain categories of former owners from granting such rights. cases in which categories of owners are excluded in this way, their claims for restitution can not be the basis for a legitimate expectation that evoked protection of Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Gratzinger and Gratzingerova in. the Czech Republic (dec.) (GC), no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII). On the other hand, once a Contracting State after ratifying the Convention, including Protocol No. 1, pass legislation providing for full or partial restitution of property confiscated by the former regime, such regulations can be seen to create a new property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 for persons who meet the requirements for eligibility. (extract) (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-429/2011 of 18.04.2013.godine)

THE JUDGMENT UZZ.BR.20/2008-2 FROM 26.05.2010. CROATIA'S SUPREME COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT FOREIGN NATIONALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION OF CONFISCATED PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF

NATIONALITY AND REGARDLESS OF THE COMPENSATION ISSUE IS NOT RESOLVED INTERSTATE AGREEMENT, AS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: Proceeding from this, taking into account, among other things, set forth the arguments of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, the former owners who are not Croatian citizens should generally be entitled to compensation or restitution of property, and determine under which conditions will these people be entitled to compensation, we can conclude that the legislature the right side of the person (natural or legal) to the exercise of the right to compensation for seized homeland tied with skloplieni interstate agreement. It is obvious that in the interpretation and finding the real will of the legislator to regulate these matters the provisions of paragraphs. 1 and 2, Art. 10 of the Compensation Act should be interpreted in their correlation. From the contents century. 1 of that article follows, therefore, that the previous owner is not entitled to compensation for seized property when the compensation issue resolved interstate agreement. As an exception, according to st. 2 of this Article, when the question of compensation for expropriated property already solved interstate agreement, compensation may be acquired by a person if it finds the interstate agreement. Argumentum a contrario interpretation shows that in other cases, where the question of compensation is not resolved interstate agreement, the former owner is entitled to compensation for the expropriated property. Time, therefore, the implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court equated the legal status of the former owners of confiscated property, irrespective of their nationality, and thus achieving equality of citizens before the law. In the context of interpretation set forth the amended Art. 9 and Art. 10 of the Compensation Act, the provisions of Art. 7 WALL of the Compensation Act can not be interpreted as interpreted by the application, ie. that the right to compensation is limited to only those who are after the 11th of October in 1996. acquired Croatian citizenship. This is the content of the provisions of Art. 7th century. First sub-par. 1, while the specific case to the sub-par. 2nd century. 1 of Art. 7 of the Law on Compensation. (Judgment of the Supreme Court No.: Uzz 20/08-2 from 26 May 2010.)

REHABILITATION DOES NOT MEAN AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO RETURN CONFISCATED PROPERTY AS RESTITUTION IN A SPECIAL LAW Sam rehabilitation unduly prisoner does not mean an automatic right to return confiscated property, because the right to restitution and compensation in a special law. Based on the established facts of the appellate court is the proper application of Article 8 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Off. Gazette of the RS", no. 33/06), rejected the claim. The proper conclusion appellate court that the procedure unduly rehabilitation of the convicted person does not mean an automatic right to return confiscated property, since Article 8 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that the right to restitution and compensation regulated by a special law. Law on Property Restitution and Compensation ("Off. Gazette of RS", no. 72/11 of 26 September 2011th g) the terms, conditions and procedures for the return of property seized by applying the provisions listed in Section 2 of the Act. (Judgment of the Supreme Court Rev. 2458/10 of 25 January 2012.)

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE TITULAR TITULAR NATURAL RESTITUTION AND MONETARY COMPENSATION IS NOT THE SAME, HOWEVER, THE ABOVE DIFFERENCES IN THE POSITION OF THESE TWO CATEGORIES OF FORMER OWNER IS NO OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION ARISING FROM THE USE OR STATUS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY In the submitted initiative states that Article 8 of the Act inconsistent with the Constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as in this article defines the principle of priority repayment in kind, and thus creates inequality before the law, because once returns "the same property taken, and others the right to compensation under this Act which is not market value"; From the above provisions of the Constitution, the finding of the Constitutional Court, it follows that the

Constitution allows for the possibility that the social or state ownership resulting original right way of acquiring property - an act of the state (law, decree or individual act) may, by an act of the state (in this case the law) , change the form of ownership, ie. to be returned to private ownership, under the conditions prescribed by law. This further means that there is a constitutional authority that challenged the law regulates the conditions, manner and procedure of restitution and compensation for expropriated property, where it must be borne in mind that this is a property that has been seized on the basis of previously existing constitution and regulations, which means that for such a taking of property no legal basis, and is in this sense a logical determination of the legislator to establish a right to restitution of the former owner of the property and the possession or the right to compensation for confiscated property that can not be returned in kind, as provided by the challenged provisions of the Act, where the orientation thing legislator to restrict this right in the sense that the same does not mean the right to return the fruits and damages for the lost profits (Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Act). The Constitution does not recognize the principle of equality as a general, abstract concept that every legal situation equally applies to all legal entities, but guarantees equality under the same category of entities, ie the same type of law. Moreover, it is undisputed that the former owner whose property is returned in kind, and the former owner of the seized property to get compensation under the terms and conditions stipulated by this law, are not in the same position. However, the above differences in the position of these two categories of former owner is no objective and reasonable justification, for certain property, for objective reasons, stemming from their use or status, except as provided in Section 18 of the Act, as well as cases referred to in Article 22, paragraph . 2 to 7 of the Act, according to which the building land in the state, social or cooperative ownership does not return, and art. 27 and 28 of the Act, relating to the return of the apartment buildings, houses, apartments and office buildings and business premises, can not be returned, and in these cases the former owner is entitled to compensation for the expropriated property. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-462/2011 of 11.04.2013.godine)

THE ACQUIRER OF ASSETS, WHICH, AFTER NATIONALIZATION OF ASSETS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, HAS ACQUIRED THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP, REMAINS THE OWNER AND POSSESSOR OF THINGS, AND HIS ACQUIRED RIGHTS MUST NOT BE VIOLATED The initiative filed with the Constitutional Court the applicant considers that the provision of Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Act, which provides that this law does not affect the application of other regulations on the protection of property rights and other rights acquired in accordance with the law, unless they are not in compliance with , was unconstitutional because the law was contrary to the "many other regulations on the protection of property rights," and is "already enacted and existing laws and the rights conferred on them by the question." In relation to the disputed provision of Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Act, the Constitutional Court found that the challenged provision governing relationship previously adopted regulations and challenged the Act on the general principle applicable to later pass a law derogating from the provisions of the earlier law passed if not in compliance with , where the Court had in mind that the question posed by the initiator governed by Article 10 of the impugned Act, under which the acquirer of assets, after nationalization of assets, in accordance with the law, has acquired the right of ownership, remains the owner and possessor of things, and its lessons rights must not be violated, which means that states initiators show as unfounded. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-429/2011 of 18.04.2013.godine)

IF THE CLAIMANT TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO RETURN ITEMS OF COMPENSATION BY ONE BASIS, BY THE SECOND BASE STATION REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE SAME ITEM OF COMPENSATION CAN NOT BE RETURNED MANY TIMES ON VARIOUS GROUNDS In one of the initiatives of the challenged provision of Article 12 of the Act, in respect of which the originator considers that a disadvantage claimants whose property was confiscated in part on several grounds compared to

those whose case was taken from the return in its entirety on one basis and as an example of the building with several apartments, which were seized on several grounds. In relation to the provision of Article 12 of the Act, which provides that an applicant who has the right, on various grounds, claim the return of certain property, for the same item of compensation may be entitled to exercise only in one respect, the Constitutional Court started from the fact that , according to the impugned provisions of the Act, the applicant is entitled to the return of the subject of compensation by one basis, and the second time basically become redundant and unnecessary because the same item of compensation can not be returned many times on various grounds. The example of a residential building with several apartments that were seized on various grounds, stating initiator as the reason for their initiative, it is possible to determine the identity between subject and object revocation restitution or compensation, meaning that in each case subject to restitution or compensation apartment building as part of a real or an ideal, which folded, and not the entire building, so this does not question the right of the applicant that he is entitled under this Act. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-429/2011 of 18.04.2013.godine)

THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETURN OF PROPERTY OR COMPENSATION FOR THE MOVABLE, UNDER THE SAID IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES OF THE LAW, BE LIMITED TO THOSE MOVABLES WHICH ARE MORE OR LASTING VALUE AND THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED, SUCH AS MOVABLE PROPERTY REGISTERED IN PUBLIC REGISTRY The initiative filed with the Constitutional Court the applicant considers that the provisions of Article 15, paragraph 3 of the Act indicates that the subject did not return podržavljne moving things that are not registered in the public register, which puts at a disadvantage those persons who claim the seized movable property, which are not recorded in the public Register. In relation to the disputed provision of Article 15, paragraph 3 of the Law, the Constitutional Court found that, given that there is a significant lapse of time following the completion of forfeiture, and thus the practical impossibility of a bona fide evidence, no objective and reasonable justification for the return of property or compensation for moving things, according to the said impugned provisions of the articles of the law, be limited to those movables which are more or lasting value and that can be identified, such as movable property registered in the public register in which shall be entered the property right in these matters, as well as other things to run according to the rules of cultural property is a cultural monument of great cultural heritage and great importance, and which exist on the date of enactment of this Act. (Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia no. IUz-429/2011 of 18.04.2013.godine)

CURRENT CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR TERMINATION OF THE LEASE AND EVICTION IS NOT AN OBSTACLE FOR THE PROCEEDINGS OF RESTITUTION AND MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT RESTORING THE APARTMENT TO ITS FORMER OWNER In a complaint filed with the Administrative Court on 09.12.2010. The prosecutor Municipality SV challenging the legality of the defendant's body from all statutory reasons. Indicates that it is not part of the debate, scheduled for 16.09.2010. year, which he was not allowed to comment on the allegations of the applicant, or to indicate that the court in B. ongoing case brought by this plaintiff against the defendants DA and JP "The City Housing" from B. for termination and eviction from the apartment, for what reason would suggest interruption of the administrative process to the final conclusion of the above litigation. It is considered that the respondent erred in deciding, he had in mind that the adoption of the contested decision the prosecutor lose legal capacity at the said court case, and if the plaintiff succeeded in this litigation, would be able to hand over the ownership and possession of the flat No. . 3 in the basement of the building in the street ... in B., 40 m2 Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, emptied of all persons and things, so in kind. He suggested that the court upheld the complaint and annul the contested decision. After considering the explanation, answer the complaint alleges the members present and proxies and all records of this administrative matter, the court finds that the complaint is unfounded.

In light of these legal provisions and established facts, correctly, in the opinion of the court, the defendant acted authority when it enacted the disputed partial solution, which is the request of an interested party for restoring the property - a one-bedroom apartment no. 3, with a total area of 40 m2 in the basement of the building at ... adopted and pledged the Republic of Serbia, as the owner and the municipality, as the user, the Patriarchate of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as the previous owner, the same surrender of title and possession. The Court appreciated the explanation that the decision is not taken with the substantial violation of rules of procedure, and found them to be unfounded. This is because the prosecutor asked to comment on the allegations filed request for return of the property, which he did by motion of 19.08.2010. year, bringing the prosecutor, in the opinion of the court, allowed to participate in the proceedings, a respondent in the impugned judgment appreciated prosecutor stated that before the civil court in the course of the case brought by plaintiff for termination of the lease of the apartment and moving out, and correctly found that the same without the influence of the different decision in this administrative matter, because the subject property - apartment is owned by the state, a subject of litigation is not the right property for the right to lease. In addition, according to the representative plaintiff, in his words at the oral public hearing lawsuit to evict a person who lives in the apartment, legally ended in rejection requires prosecutors to move out. With the above-mentioned reasons, concluded after an oral public hearing, pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Law on Administrative Disputes, finding that the impugned decision is violation of the law to the detriment of plaintiff, the Administrative Court, applying the provisions of Article 40, paragraph 2 of the Law on Administrative Disputes decided as in the enacting clause. (Administrative Court no. U.30381/2010 16 of 31.10.2012.godine)

NOT A LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF THE FORMER OWNER (THE CHURCH) THAT A RELIGIOUS ENTITY WITH THE FORMER OWNER HAS A SPIRITUAL CONNECTION BUT NO LEGAL CONTINUITY In a complaint filed with the Administrative Court on 20.01.2010. The prosecutor challenged the legality of the conclusion of the respondent authorities for incomplete and errors of fact and application of substantive law. It is alleged that the defendant did not properly apply the Law on Churches and Religious Communities in 2006., The Law on Restitution of Property to Churches and Religious Communities and regulations. It is believed that the Evangelical Christian Church av based in S. is not the legal successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but the Slovak Evangelical Church av in Serbia the legal successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church av the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, because there is a binding decision of the majority of churches Slovak Evangelical Church av in Serbia, evangelical churches in Croatia and Germany, the Slovak Evangelical Church av in Serbia the legal successor of the German Evangelical - Christian Church av the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. He further stated that based on the evidence the defendant should have recognized the prosecutor as the legal successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church av-the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and requested him to return the property. It is suggested that the court upheld the complaint and annul the challenged finding of the defendant and seized property to the plaintiff in the property and determines that the plaintiff has wholly owns the church and churchyard in Z., registered in the land registry KO Z. 1036. In the opinion of the Administrative Court, the defendant acted properly when authority is challenged conclusion rejected the prosecutor's request, correctly concluding that there were no conditions for the conduct of the proceedings, finding that the conclusion was no violation of the rules of procedure, that is based on a properly established facts and the proper application substantive law.

The provision of Article 6 of the Law on Restitution (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities ("Official Gazette of RS" No. 46/2006) provides that the right to restitution of property belonging to churches and religious communities, or their successors in accordance with applicable laws and churches religious communities, and article 24 of the same law that, among other things, the parties to the proceedings of the church or religious community or its legal successor.

The provision of Article 10 Paragraph 1 of the Law on Churches and Religious Communities ("Official Gazette of RS" No. 36/06) stipulates that the traditional churches ones in the Republic of Serbia have a centuries-long historical continuity, having legal personality acquired on the basis of special laws and the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic church, the Slovak Evangelical Church av, Christian Reformed church and the Evangelical Christian Church av, while Article 13 of the same law Slovak Evangelical Church av, reformist Christian Church and the Evangelical Christian Church recognized the continuity of legal personality acquired on the basis of the Evangelical Christian Churches and Christian Reformist Church of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ("Official Gazette of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia" No. 95/30). Paragraph 1, of the Evangelical Christian Churches and Christian Reformist Church of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was provided to the Augsburg confession of faith Evangelicals (Lutherans) in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia consists of two separate, one from the other nezavesne Evangelical-Augsburg confession of faith of the Christian Church of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Slovakia and Germany, and paragraph 4 of the same laws that are the same and the Christian Reformed church and their church - autonomous bodies, legal entities. Proceeding from the above established facts and the cited statutory provisions and opinions of the competent authorities, the proper respondent authority disputed the conclusion rejected the prosecutor's request for restitution of church and churchyard in the municipality Z., due to the lack of conditions for the conduct of the proceedings. This is because it correctly determined that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there were two separate, independent from one another, the particular Lutheran church, Slovakia and Germany, which are at the basis of the Evangelical Christian Church and Christian Reformist Church of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1930. Was acquired their legitimacy and legal status in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and that the German Evangelical-Christian av Church in Kraljeviii Yugoslavia with the Evangelical Church in Germany had only a "spiritual connection". Accordingly outlined by the finding of this court correctly determined that after the Second World War, the Evangelical Christian Church av the People's Republic of Serbia continued to work instead of the German Evangelical Christian Church av-the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in accordance with the legal status of churches and religious communities from in 1953., by which is regulated the legal status of religious organizations has brought a new constitution in 1955., by which to comply with this Act and reaffirmed its legal continuity of legal personality acquired the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in accordance with Article 13 of the Law on Churches and Religious Communities, as well as the traditional church and today is recognized and registered in the Republic of Serbia under the name Evangelical Christian church av in Serbia. This Court finds that the proper respondent in the impugned conclusion found that the episcopal vocation Slovakian Evangelic Church av Serbia can not be considered the successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church av the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and therefore, pursuant to Article 6 and 24 of the Law on restitution (restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities ("RS Official Gazette" no. 46/2006) is not actively authorized to apply for restitution of the property concerned, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 115, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Administrative procedure ("Official Gazette" No. 33/97 and 31/2001, "Official Gazette of RS" No. 30/10) found that there is no requirement for the initiation of proceedings by prosecutors for the return of the underlying assets. This court finds that the defendant authority properly and strictly adhered to the law in making the challenged finding, because the law interpreted as it reads that., Properly treated all the churches and religious communities. (Administrative Court no. III-3-U.17098/2010 of 02.12.2011.godine)

AN ENTITY THAT IS NOT THE LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF THE FORMER OWNER HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS RESTITUTION Impugned judgment of the Administrative Court no. III-3-U.17098/2010 of 02.12.2011.godine, rejected the lawsuit, against the decision of the Directorate for Restitution of the Republic of Serbia 146-03-46-00-772/07 from 09.12.2009. years, rejecting the prosecution's request for restitution of confiscated property due to the lack of

conditions for the conduct of the proceedings. According to the reasoning of the contested judgment, the proper conclusion is disputed rejected the request of the Episcopal titles Slovak Evangelical Church av Serbian restitution of confiscated property Evangelist church municipality in Z.. This is the reason that the Administrative Procedure Act, realized correctly determined that there are no conditions for the conduct of the proceedings, as the episcopal vocation Slovak Evangelical Church av Serbia can not be considered the successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church av the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Therefore, of episcopal rank Slovak Evangelical Church av Serbia is actively authorized to apply for restitution of property seized by the Lutheran Parish in Z, in the sense of Art. 6 and 24 of the Law on Restitution (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities. Assessing the legality of the impugned judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation found that the judgment was not violated the procedures and the proper application of the law to the established facts contained in the disputed conclusion. Contested Verdict vote all questions and circumstances that could have an impact on the legality of the challenged conclusion for this assessment are given sufficient and clear reasons given to all accepted by the court. The Supreme Court of Cassation is appreciated stated requirements, emphasized in the lawsuit that the Slovak Evangelical Church av in Serbia the legal successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church av in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the territory of Serbia, and found that the allegations are unfounded. This is because the procedure established, based on the opinion of the Ministry of Religious Affairs of Serbia 12.06.2009. and the Provincial Secretariat of Regulations, Administration and National Minorities of AP Vojvodina from 12.05.2009. years, and all the other evidence in the file, and under the provisions of Articles 10 and 13 of the Law on Churches and Religious Communities ("Off. Gazette of RS", No. 36/06), that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there were two separate and independent evangelical churches - Slovakia and Germany, which are the basis of the Evangelical Christian Church and Christian Reformist Church of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the 1930s. been able to acquire legitimacy and legal status in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Given the above, the Supreme Court of Cassation is the right attitude in the impugned judgment that the Slovak Evangelical Church, or the episcopal vocation Slovak Evangelical Church av in Serbia, as the applicant claims, can not be considered the successor of the German Evangelical Christian Church av-the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This is particularly important with the reason that the completion of the procedure established that after World War II, the Evangelical Christian Church av in the People's Republic of Serbia continued to work instead of the German Evangelical Christian Church av-the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and that after the adoption of the legal status of churches and religious communities from in 1953., with its ecclesiastical constitutions, compliance with this law, confirming its legal continuity of legal personality acquired in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In accordance with Article 13 of the Law on Churches and Religious Communities as a traditional church and today is recognized and registered in the Republic of Serbia under the name Evangelical Christian Church av in Serbia, with the above-mentioned reasons stated unfounded claims related to violation of Art. 6 and 7 of this Act. Esteemed and says requirements regarding violations of the right to a fair hearing, and the Supreme Court of Cassation found that the allegations are unfounded, since the Administrative Court in resolving the complaint referred to the provision of Article 33, paragraph 2 of the Law on Administrative Disputes ("sl. Gazette "No. 111/09), which provides that the court decided without oral hearing, if the subject matter is such that apparently does not require direct examination of parties and special fact-finding, or if the parties expressly agree. Bearing in mind that the Administrative Court found that the facts set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act to provide complete and reliable basis for assessing the legality of the challenged conclusion that the finding of the court, in that discussion was held not violated the rules of procedure. (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. Uzp 31/12 of 10.02.2012. Year)

NATURAL PERSONS NOT ENTITLED RESTITUTION UNDER THE LAW ON RESTITUTION (RESTITUTION) OF PROPERTY

TO CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE RIGHTS AS TO THE SEIZED PROPERTY CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED BY THE LAW GOVERNING RESTITUTION RIGHTS FOR INDIVIDUALS Request for review of the impugned judgment was filed for violation of laws, other regulations and general acts and violations of the rules of procedure. In the application, the applicant stated that the Administrative Court, referring to the contested judgment on Articles 1, 6 and 9 of the Law on Restitution (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities and the finding that the plaintiff as an individual is not really legitimized the institution of proceedings for restitution property, committed discrimination plaintiff in relation to the churches and religious communities. It is believed that in this way a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which prohibits discrimination, as well as a number of international conventions that guarantee the protection of basic human and political rights. Indicates that the Administrative Court was obliged to provisions of this Act applied to other citizens within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the gradual denationalization chosen by the Republic of Serbia adoption of several laws since 1990. was not possible as the Republic of Serbia has not signed the said Convention and adopted a Constitution which expressly prohibits discrimination. It is suggested that the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the request and revoke the contested Verdict. The Supreme Court of Cassation is valued state requires that the Administrative Court was bound to the provisions of the Law on Restitution (Restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities applied to other citizens, and that the impugned judgment been discriminated against natural persons in relation to the churches and religious communities, and found that the allegations are unfounded. In the above undisputed facts and legal status of this administrative matter, the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the administrative court challenged the ruling was concluded that the disputed the conclusion reached by the proper application of Article 115, Paragraph 2 of the Law on General Administrative Procedure Act because the applicant did not really legitimized the initiation process of returning property to the Law on Restitution (restitution) of Property to Churches and Religious Communities, and therefore challenged the verdict was injured law against her, nor the adoption of the contested judgment carried discrimination of natural persons in relation to the churches and religious communities. Specifically, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms imposes on the Contracting States any restrictions on the freedom of states to determine the extent of restitution and choose the terms under which you will return the property rights of former owners. (Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, in Janter. Slovakia, no. 39050/97, § 34, 4.03.2003). Process of restitution in Serbia is regulated by the enactment and implementation of laws. Thus, the provision of Article 1 of the Law on Property Restitution and Compensation ("Off. Gazette of the Republic of Serbia", no. 72/11), which entered into force on 06.10.2011. year, provided, among other things, that this law regulates the conditions, manner and procedure of restitution and compensation for property confiscated in the territory of the Republic of Serbia by individuals and certain entities. Therefore, the impugned judgment, nor disputed the conclusion of which the legality of the vote this judgment, do not prevent the applicant to exercise their rights in respect of confiscated assets realized under the law regulates the manner and procedure of compensation and restitution of property confiscated from individuals, as correctly stated in the explanation impugned judgment. (Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation no. Uzp 369/2012 of 16.11.2012. Year)