THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MIHAJLOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
(Application no. 11362/17 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 October 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mihajlović and Others v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dmitry Dedov, President,
Alena Poláčková,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 September 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms T. Stojiljković, a lawyer practising in Leskovac.
3. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION and article 1 of protocol no. 1
7. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in the relevant part, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. ...”
8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
9. In the leading cases of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, §§ 97-99, 106-16 and 119-20, 15 January 2008, Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 and 3 others, § 124, 13 January 2009, and Stevanović and Others [Committee], nos. 43815/17 and 15 others, 27 August 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Stošić v. Serbia, no. 64931/10, §§ 66-68, 1 October 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and it dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
15. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtDmitry Dedov
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic award
(in euros)
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] [2]
11362/17
27/01/2017
Tomislav Mihajlović
25/10/1950
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 16/06/1998
05/05/2006
30/01/2017
10 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s)
170
2,000
11366/17
27/01/2017
Bratislav Kostić
03/02/1961
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 03/06/2003
13/10/2004
02/03/2017
12 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)
85
2,000
11387/17
27/01/2017
Slavica Zdravković
09/05/1959
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 25/12/2006
12/01/2007
02/03/2017
10 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
0
2,000
11481/17
31/01/2017
Jovan Nikolić
23/07/1961
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 25/03/2003
18/11/2004
10/04/2017
12 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)
85
2,000
58011/17
31/07/2017
Žikica Stojiljković
12/11/1954
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 23/02/2004
11/02/2008
10/08/2017
9 year(s) and 6 month(s)
300
2,000
58021/17
31/07/2017
Gordana Đorđević
22/12/1959
Municipal Court in Lesovac, 16/04/2003
09/01/2008
10/08/2017
9 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)
300
2,000
59990/17
04/08/2017
Slavica Mihajlović
19/11/1957
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 25/03/2003
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 31/01/2008
04/04/2008
17/07/2008
10/08/2017
9 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 7 day(s)
10/08/2017
9 year(s) and 25 day(s)
100
2,000
68618/17
04/09/2017
Lena Krstić
15/12/1978
Municipal Cout in Leskovac, 21/05/2003
17/03/2008
10/08/2017
9 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
100
2,000
71798/17
21/09/2017
Jasmina Marković
24/08/1954
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 19/03/2003
25/11/2004
10/08/2017
12 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)
255
2,000
71930/17
21/09/2017
Mirjana Mitić
14/11/1960
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 16/05/2003
26/11/2007
10/08/2017
9 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 day(s)
255
2,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2]. Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy