THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28855/13
Snežana MITIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Snežana Mitić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Vladičin Han. She was represented before the Court by Mr N. Antić, a lawyer practising in Vladičin Han.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
A. The facts as submitted by the applicant
The applicant is a former employee of DP PK Delišes (the debtor), a socially-owned company. She obtained final judgments ordering the debtor to pay her certain sums (see the Vladičin Han Municipal Court’s judgments of 7 October 2003, 26 February 2004 and 17 February 2005). At her request to that effect, the applicant was issued enforcement orders in respect of these judgments (see the Vladičin Han Municipal Court’s enforcement orders of 30 January 2004, 21 April 2004 and 19 July 2005).
The enforcement of the final judgements in question has never been carried out.
B. The additional facts submitted by the Government
The Government informed the Court that on 10 August 2009 the applicant withdrew her claims for the enforcement of the judgments of 26 February 2004 and 17 February 2005. As a result, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court terminated the respective enforcement proceedings by its decision of 29 September 2009. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision.
COMPLAINT
The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments rendered in her favour. This complaint falls to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. They pointed out that the applicant had omitted to inform the Court that the enforcement proceedings had been terminated at her request.
The applicant did not dispute having withdrawn her requests for enforcement and having failed to appeal the decisions on termination of the enforcement proceedings, but argued that this was irrelevant.
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).
The Court notes that the present applicant complained that final court judgments rendered in her favour against a socially-owned company had not been enforced. However, she withdrew her requests for enforcement of the judgments of 26 February 2004 and 17 February 2005, which led to the final termination of the related enforcement proceedings.
The applicant’s complete silence on the termination of the enforcement proceedings while upholding her allegations that the judgments had not been enforced due to the debtor’s restructuring cannot be interpreted, in the Court’s view, as anything else but a failure to disclose information concerning the very core of the application.
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 v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).
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 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2015.
Marialena TsirliValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy