THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15767/12
Jovan VESELINOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 July 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2012,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jovan Veselinović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Ruma. He was represented before the Court by his son, Mr N. Veselinović.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
On 13 September 2005, the Ruma Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company AD “Korzo” Ruma (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of unjust enrichment. This decision became final on 18 October 2005.
The Ruma Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of that decision on 14 November 2005.
In May 2006 the Sremska Mitrovica Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor and the applicant reported his claims in the course of these proceedings.
On 12 July 2006 the Commercial Court partially recognized the applicant’s claims. Regarding the disputed part of the claims, the applicant was referred to initiate a separate civil suit, but he never did so.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement a final domestic judgment rendered in his favour. These complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible, since the applicant had received the full amounts of his claims subsequently recognized by the Commercial Court.
The applicant maintained that the Ruma Municipal Court’s final judgment had not been fully enforced.
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 Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5 November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili, cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (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 Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others, cited above; Predescu, cited above, §§ 25-26; and Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
According to the documents submitted by the Government, by September 2009 the applicant received from the debtor, in several instalments, the full amount subsequently recognized by the Commercial Court’s decision.
Given the significance of this information for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicant’s failure to disclose such information 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 30 July 2015.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy