SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MLADENOVIĆ AND ĐOKIĆ v. SERBIA
(Applications nos. 44719/18 and 44998/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the cases of Mladenović and Đokić v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 April 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 44719/18 and 44998/18) against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 September 2018.
2. The applicants were represented by T. Stojiljković, a lawyer practising in Leskovac.
3. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications on 19 March 2020.
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 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 OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained of the 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 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. 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.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, 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.”
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 case of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008, 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 (see Stevanović and Others v. Serbia, nos. 43815/17 and 15 others, § 17, 27 August 2019), 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, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008 and Stanković v. Serbia (dec.), 41285/19, 19 December 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and 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 a socially/State-owned company;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 applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaCarlo Ranzoni
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
Year of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia (3 March 2004)
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1] [2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
44719/18
10/09/2018
Dragoljub MLADENOVIĆ
1967
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 13/06/2003
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 03/04/2001
27/07/2004
06/06/2006
28/08/2018
14 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)
28/08/2018
12 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 23 day(s)
1,000
250
44998/18
10/09/2018
Vladimir ĐOKIĆ
1961
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 19/10/2001
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 16/12/2003
03/03/2004
20/05/2004
28/08/2018
14 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 26 day(s)
28/08/2018
14 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1,000
250
[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.
[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy