FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19207/17
Milan TANASKOVIĆ against Serbia
and 20 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, 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 respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Ms D. Janković, a lawyer practising in Čačak.
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 25 February 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 or delayed 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.
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 Bihorac Hajdaragić v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], no. 34929/16, 6 November 2018).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that between 8 March 2017 and 31 March 2019 the sums awarded in the domestic decisions at issue were fully paid by the State. 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 these 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 22 October 2020.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
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
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
Date of enforcement of domestic decision
19207/17
01/03/2017
Milan TANASKOVIĆ
09/04/1958
Municipal Court in Čačak, 19/08/2009
05/03/2010
08/03/2017
62353/17
18/08/2017
Milovan RUŽIČIĆ
09/04/1962
Municipal Court in Čačak, 20/02/2008
21/05/2008
31/10/2017
73020/17
29/09/2017
Đurđija MILOŠEVIĆ
23/07/1947
Municipal Court in Čačak, 07/02/2008
21/05/2008
31/10/2017
73022/17
29/09/2017
Radoš MILOŠEVIĆ
09/10/1947
Municipal Court in Čačak, 07/02/2008
21/05/2008
31/10/2017
75553/17
19/10/2017
Milutin MILOŠEVIĆ
06/08/1953
Municipal Court in Čačak, 28/03/2008
27/10/2008
01/11/2017
75835/17
20/10/2017
Radomir NIKOLIĆ
01/06/1954
Municipal Court in Čačak, 25/02/2008
07/07/2008
07/11/2017
75845/17
20/10/2017
Jovan JOVANOVIĆ
15/02/1957
Municipal Court in Čačak, 25/02/2008
07/07/2008
07/11/2017
75851/17
19/10/2017
Branko TOMIĆ
26/09/1958
Municipal Court in Čačak, 28/03/2008
27/10/2008
31/10/2017
75864/17
20/10/2017
Jeremija KOTLAJIĆ
01/06/1954
Municipal Court in Čačak, 21/01/2008
19/03/2009
07/11/2017
75867/17
20/10/2017
Dragan MARKOVIĆ
26/11/1952
Municipal Court in Čačak, 25/02/2008
07/07/2008
07/11/2017
75869/17
20/10/2017
Milinko MILOJEVIĆ
09/05/1948
Municipal Court in Čačak, 08/07/2008
06/03/2009
08/11/2017
77835/17
04/11/2017
Olga ĐOKIĆ
21/02/1952
Municipal Court in Čačak, 18/06/2009
25/01/2010
19/12/2017
77840/17
04/11/2017
Zoran ĐURIĆ
25/10/1966
Municipal Court in Čačak, 12/03/2008
10/06/2008
19/12/2017
78221/17
04/11/2017
Vučeta JAKOVLJEVIĆ
15/05/1959
Municipal Court in Čačak, 18/06/2009
25/01/2010
19/12/2017
78250/17
04/11/2017
Nada PANIĆ
14/03/1951
Municipal Court in Čačak, 08/07/2008
06/03/2009
08/11/2017
78331/17
04/11/2017
Milan TANOVIĆ
27/10/1948
Municipal Court in Čačak, 08/07/2008
06/03/2009
08/11/2017
78431/17
04/11/2017
Zoran GRBIĆ
25/04/1965
Municipal Court in Čačak, 12/03/2008
10/06/2008
19/12/2017
52202/18
19/10/2018
Nenad RUŽIČIĆ
25/03/1957
Čačak Court of First Instance, 03/02/2012
13/02/2014
15/11/2018
53103/18
24/10/2018
Dimitrije MILADINOVIĆ
13/01/1958
Municipal Court in Čačak, 31/01/2008
Municipal Court in Čačak, 18/06/2009
01/12/2008
26/03/2010
31/10/2018
31/10/2018
53114/18
24/10/2018
Miodrag BORIŠIĆ
20/07/1961
Municipal Court in Čačak, 31/01/2008
01/12/2008
30/10/2018
55242/18
05/11/2018
Miroljub MITROVIĆ
15/03/1950
First Municipal Court in Belgrade, 18/10/2005
22/03/2006
30/01/2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy