SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 28042/18 and 13929/19
Suzana RADOIČIĆ against Serbia
and Stojana RAVIĆ - BOŠKOVIĆ against Serbia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 19 March 2020.
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)
The Government submitted that the final domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour had been enforced.
The applicants 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 Nikolić and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 48162/18 and 8 others, 21 January 2021).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that on 1 March 2018 and 30 January 2019 the sums awarded in the domestic decisions at issue were fully paid by the State in accordance with domestic law (see Stevanović and Others v. Serbia, nos. 43815/17 and 15 others, § 17, 27 August 2019). The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications was given to the Government and no explanation for this omission was provided.
Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, 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 the applications constitute 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,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021.
{signature_p_2}
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
Representative’s name and location
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)
Date of enforcement of domestic decision
28042/18
05/06/2018
Suzana RADOIČIĆ
1968
Trenčić Dejan
Leskovac
Municipal Court in Leskovac, 18/05/2007
25/06/2010
01/03/2018
13929/19
06/03/2019
Stojana RAVIĆ-BOŠKOVIĆ
1958
Čakara Rešat
Novi Pazar
Kraljevo Commercial Court, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
30/01/2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy