SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32861/20
Srna MULKA
against Serbia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 March 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 2020,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Ms S. Stanković, a lawyer practising in Belgrade.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 26 August 2021.
THE LAW
The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to inform the Court that the national authorities had acknowledged the alleged breach and that the applicant had sought compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage suffered as a consequence of it. They therefore suggested that the Court should reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The applicant did not dispute that fact, but considered it 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 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. 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 Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Denić and Stamenković v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 58944/18 and 58948/18, 5 November 2020).
Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the competent domestic court acknowledged the alleged breach on 29 June 2021. In accordance with that decision, the applicant has been entitled to seek compensation in that connection and she has done so. The applicant did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the application was given to the Government. The Court only learned about it from the Government’s observations of 29 December 2021. No convincing explanation for this omission was provided.
Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the application, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
In view of the above, the Court finds that this application constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application and must be rejected in accordance with 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 14 April 2022.
{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application 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)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Final domestic decision concerning the claim that the proceedings had been of excessive length
32861/20
08/07/2020
Srna MULKA
1955
Commercial Court in Užice, 28/04/2011
28/04/2011
pending
More than 10 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 29 day(s)
Commercial Court in Užice, 29/06/2021