THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 63649/13 Branka CVETKOVIĆ against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta , President, Dragoljub Popović , Iulia Antoanella Motoc , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 September 2013,

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, Ms Branka Cvetković , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Vladičin Han . She 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.

A. The facts initially submitted by the applicant

On 1 October 2003 the Municipal Court ( Opštinski sud ) in Vladičin Han ordered DP PK Delišes (“the debtor”), at the relevant time a socially-owned company, to pay to the applicant certain sums on account of salary arrears and employment related benefits due for the period from 1 October 2001 to 30 April 2003.

On 26 December 2003, upon the applicant ’ s request to that effect, the Municipal Co urt issued an enforcement order in regard to the judgment of 1 October 2003.

On 6 April 2004 the Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay to the applicant certain sums on account of salary arrears and employment related benefits due for the period from 1 May to 31 October 2003.

On 17 May 2004, upon the applicant ’ s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in regard to the judgment of 6 April 2004.

The enforcement had not been carried out since the debtor was ordered to undergo restructuring on 18 February 2004.

B. The facts submitted by the Government

The Government informed the Court that on 18 May 2005 the applicant withdrew her claims for the enforcement of the judgments of 1 October 2003 and 6 April 2004, in accordance with which, on 31 May 2005 the Municipal Court terminated the respective enforcement proceedings. The applicant did not appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment s 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 .

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 failed to provide the Court with all the facts relevant to her complaint. In particular, in her application to the Court, the applicant omitted to inform the Court that the enforcement proceedings had been terminated , at her request, on 31 May 2005 . They relied, in that connection, on Stojilković and Others v. Serbia , no. 36274/08, § 28, 5 March 2013, in which the Court, in a similar case, found that an appeal against the decision terminating enforcement proceedings was an effective legal remedy.

The applicant did not dispute withdrawing her requests for enforcement and failing to appeal the decisions of 31 May 2005, but argued that these facts were irrelevant to her application to the Court .

The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application withi n 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).

I n the present case, in her application to the Court lodged on 20 September 2013 the applicant complained that the Municipal Court judgments of 1 October 2003 and 6 April 2004 had not been enforced. The Court observes that on 31 May 2005 the Municipal Court terminated the enforcement proceedings in respect of those judgments in accordance with the applicant ’ s request to that effect and that the applicant did not appeal.

However, the applicant ’ s complete silence on the termination of the enforcement proceedings and her statement that the judgments had not been enforced due to restructuring of the debtor 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 a whole 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.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Å ikuta              Deputy Registrar President