THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 16919/13 Ljiljana ĐORĐEVIĆ against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 1 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou , President, Branko Lubarda , Pere Pastor Vilanova , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2013 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ljiljana Đorđević , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Vladičin Han. Sh e was represented before the Court by Mr N. Antić , a lawyer practising in Vladičin Han .

The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić .

The applicant is a former employee of DP PK Delišes (the debtor) , a socially-owned company. On 2 June 2003 the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay her certain sums .

At her request to that effect, the applicant was issued an enforcement order in respect of this judgment (see the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ’ s enforcement order of 23 October 2003).

The enforcement of the final judgement in question has never been carried out.

The Government informed the Court that on 7 April 2005 the applicant withdrew her claim for the enforcement of the judgment of 2 June 2003 . As a result, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court terminated the respective enforcement proceedings by its decision of 21 April 2005. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour . This complaint falls to be examined under Article s 6 § 1 and 13 of the Conventio n and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. They pointed out that the applicant had omitted to inform the Court that the enforcement proceedings had been terminated at her request .

The applicant did not dispute having withdrawn her request for enforcement and having failed to appeal the decision on termination of the enforcement proceedings , but argued that this was irrelevant .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 (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC] , no. 67810/10 , § 28, ECHR 2014; and S.A.S. v. France [GC] , no. 43835/11 , § 67, ECHR 2014) 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 (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 Predescu , cited above, §§ 25-26; and Komatinović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013) .

In the instant case the Court notes that the applicant complained that a final court judgment rendered in her favour against a socially-owned company had not been enforced. However, she withdrew her request for enforcement of the judgment of 2 June 2003 , which led to the final termination of the related enforcement proceedings.

T he applicant ’ s complete silence on the termination of the enforcement proceedings while upholding her allegations that the judgment in question had not been enforced due to the debtor ’ s restructuring cannot be interpreted, in the Court ’ s view, as anything else but a failure to disclose information concerning the very core of the application.

Having regard to the importance of the applicant ’ s failure to disclose this information for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that such conduct 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 24 March 2016 .

Marialena Tsirli George Nicolaou              Deputy Registrar President