SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28165/18
Slađana STANIŠIĆ against Serbia
and 5 other applications
(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 is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr S. Stajić, a lawyer practising in Lebane.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 19 March 2020.
THE LAW
The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court that the national authorities had acknowledged the alleged breach and that the applicants had sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered. Moreover, most of the applicants had already been awarded compensation in that connection. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
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 Mladenović and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 41375/16 and 2 others, 29 August 2019).
Turning to the present cases, the Court notes that the competent domestic court has indeed acknowledged the alleged breach (see the appended table). Most of the applicants have been afforded redress for it and the proceedings in respect of one applicant are pending. The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications was given to the Government and no convincing 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 (see, for similar approach, Denić and Stamenković v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 58944/18 and 58948/18, 5 November 2020) 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
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
Final domestic decision concerning the claim for non-pecuniary damage
Amount awarded
28165/18
08/06/2018
Slađana STANIŠIĆ
1964
Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/05/2002
02/03/2006
12/03/2018
12 year(s) and 11 day(s)
Commercial Court in Leskovac
24/04/2018
Lebane Court of First Instance
19/09/2019
400 euros
43402/18
03/09/2018
Snežana ĐORIĆ
1962
Municipal Court in Lebane, 05/08/2004
Municipal Court in Lebane, 07/09/2005
Municipal Court in Lebane, 04/05/2006
16/04/2010
16/04/2010
16/04/2010
14/08/2018
8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)
14/08/2018
8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)
14/08/2018
8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)
Commercial Court in Leskovac
20/06/2018
pending
43530/18
04/09/2018
Živorad KOSTIĆ
1954
Municipal Court in Lebane, 08/05/2003
Municipal Court in Lebane, 29/12/2004
Municipal Court in Lebane, 13/02/2006
02/07/2009
02/07/2009
02/07/2009
07/08/2018
9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)
07/08/2018
9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)
07/08/2018
9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)
Commercial Court in Leskovac
20/03/2018
Lebane Court of First Instance
24/09/2020
450 euros
49801/18
11/10/2018
Petar STAJIĆ
1951
Municipal Court in Lebane, 24/06/2004
Municipal Court in Lebane, 05/08/2008
11/09/2007
11/09/2007
20/08/2018
10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)
20/08/2018
10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)
Commercial Court in Leskovac
09/05/2018
Lebane Court of First Instance
24/09/2019
400 euros
58435/18
26/11/2018
Zoran NIKOLIĆ
1965
Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005
11/09/2007
13/09/2018
11 year(s) and 3 day(s)
Commercial Court in Leskovac
09/05/2018
Lebane Court of First Instance
19/07/2019
400 euros
58436/18
26/11/2018
Dragi STAMENKOVIĆ
1947
Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005
11/09/2007
13/09/2018
11 year(s) and 3 day(s)
Commercial Court in Leskovac
07/06/2018
Lebane Court of First Instance
24/09/2019
400 euros
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy