THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MILOSAVLJEVIĆ v. SERBIA
(Application no. 18353/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 June 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Milosavljević 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 6 June 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 March 2012.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr Z. Vujović, a lawyer practising in Niš.
3. Notice of the application was given to the Serbian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of administrative proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
8. In the leading case of Nemet v. Serbia, no. 22543/05, 8 December 2009, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Nemet v. Serbia, no. 22543/05, §§ 19-22, 8 December 2009), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
13. 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,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 June 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtDmitry Dedov
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of administrative proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Relevant domestic decision
Domestic award
(in euros)
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1] [2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
18353/12
20/03/2012
Zorica Milosavljević
08/02/1960
08/04/2005
16/12/2010
5 years and 8 months and 9 days
1 level of jurisdiction
Constitutional Court Už-652/2011
6 February 2012
(no violation)
2,300
500
[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