THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45825/15
Aleksa MARKIŠIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 May 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 September 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksa Markišić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Belgrade. He was represented before the Court by Ms B. Gavrilović, a lawyer practising in Belgrade.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plavšić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 May 2003 the applicant initiated a civil suit seeking payment of employment-related debt from the State.
On 10 March 2009 the first-instance court rejected his claim.
On 2 June 2010 the appeal court quashed the first-instance judgement and remitted the case for a retrial.
On 24 March 2011 the first-instance court again rejected the applicant’s claim.
On 28 December 2011 the appeal court upheld the first instance judgment.
On 24 April 2014 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the first and second-instance judgments.
On 12 May 2016 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It did not award any compensation for non-pecuniary damage because the applicant had failed to make such a claim in his constitutional appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the above-mentioned civil proceedings.
THE LAW
The Government argued that the applicant’s failure to inform the Court of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 12 May 2016 constituted an abuse of the right of individual application.
The applicant made no comments in this respect.
The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings (see Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008, and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no. 15433/07, 29 May 2012). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Predescu, cited above, §§ 25-26, and Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
In the instant case the Court notes that the applicant complained about the length of civil proceedings, but he failed to inform the Court that on 12 May 2016 the Constitutional Court had found a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
Having regard to the importance of the applicant’s failure to disclose this information for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention (see Gross, cited above, § 28).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject the application as an abuse of the right of petition, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2019.
Fatoş AracıGeorgios A. Serghides
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy