Lexploria

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 17412/07 Ranka VUJISIĆ against Montenegro and 18 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 June 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, András Sajó , Nebojša Vučinić , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 7 April 2007,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement in respect of the complaints relating to the access to a court, the length of the domestic proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The sixteen applicants in the present cases lodged nineteen applications (the seventh applicant lodged two applications and the twelfth applicant lodged three applications) on 7 April 2007 (for additional personal details see the attached Annex). They are all represented before the Court by Mr R. Šuković and Mr B. Minić (who is also the twelfth applicant), lawyers practising in Bijelo Polje and Kolašin , respectively, except for the twelfth applicant himself, who is represented by Mr R. Šuković alone.

The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Pažin .

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows:

Between 1997 and 2004 a number of civil or enforcement proceedings were initiated by or against the applicants.

Between September 2002 and May 2006 the applicants filed compensation claims against the State, maintaining that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated, as the above proceedings were still ongoing at the time.

On 23 December 2004 the Court of First Instance ( Osnovni sud ) in Bijelo Polje ruled partly in favour of the twelfth applicant upon one of such compensation claims, relying on Article 11 of the Civil Proceedings Act, Article 7 of the Courts Act, and Article 6 of the Convention. It would appear that on an unspecified date thereafter the State filed an appeal. There is no information in the case file as to the outcome of the appeal.

On 16 June 2005 and 2 June 2006, respectively, the Court of First Instance in Bijelo Polje ruled against the same applicant upon two other such compensation claims on the grounds that the proceedings in respect of which length the twelfth applicant had complained of were concluded within a reasonable time and that the said applicant had contributed to the length thereof.

On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court issued a legal opinion ( pravni stav ) specifying that the national legal system of Montenegro did not have a legal remedy for violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, that the courts in Montenegro had no jurisdiction to rule on the matter and that all those who considered that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated could lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights.

Between 11 July 2006 and 5 October 2006 the Court of First Instance in Bijelo Polje decided it had no jurisdiction to rule on all the other applicants ’ compensation claims and rejected them. These decisions were upheld by the High Court ( Viši sud ) in Bijelo Polje by 3 May 2007. In so doing both courts referred to the Supreme Court ’ s legal opinion.

On 1 February 2007 and 18 October 2006, respectively, the High Court in Bijelo Polje quashed the first-instance judgments issued on 16 June 2006 and 2 June 2006 in respect of the twelfth applicant and rejected his claims, also relying on the said legal opinion.

The applicants did not attempt to make use of an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) to the Supreme Court in view of the fact that the said opinion was issued by that very court.

It would appear that the proceedings in respect of which length the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants complained of, and one of the proceedings in respect of which length the twelfth applicant complained of, are still pending. All the other proceedings were concluded between June 2005 and December 2010.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants primarily complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about their access to a court in that the domestic courts refused to examine their compensation claims on the merits. Under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention the applicants further complained about the length of previously initiated civil and enforcement proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect, as well as about the fairness and outcome of these proceedings.

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.

B. As regards the complaints about the access to a court, the length of the domestic proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect

Between 19 September 2012 and 26 September 2012 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Montenegro in respect of the facts giving rise to the complaints relating to the access to a court, the length of the domestic proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard against an undertaking by the Government to pay each of them ex gratia (per applicant and not per application) the amounts specified in the appended table to cover any and all damage, which includes costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

These sums will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the complaints pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the said complaints.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike these complaints out of the list.

C. As regards the fairness and the outcome of the domestic proceedings

The Court notes that the domestic proceedings in respect of which fairness and outcome the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants complained of, and one of the proceedings in respect of which length the twelfth applicant complained of, are still pending. Their complaints in this regard are therefore premature. It follows that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants ’ complaints about the fairness and the outcome of the proceedings which had been concluded do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded 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;

Decides to strike the complaints in respect of the access to a court, the length of the domestic proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Peer Lorenzen Acting Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name

Nationality

Place of residence

Represented by

Case number before the domestic courts

Friendly

settlement amount

17412/07

07/04/2007

Ranka VUJISIĆ

(the first applicant)

Montenegrin

Kolašin

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 582/06

4,712 EUR

17314/07

07/04/2007

Dragica VUJISIĆ

(the second applicant)

Serbian

Belgrade

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 916/05

4,712 EUR

17429/07

07/04/2007

Vukašin VUJISIĆ

(the third applicant)

Montenegrin

Kolašin

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 259/06

4,712 EUR

17435/07

07/04/2007

Viktor VUJISIĆ

(the fourth applicant)

Montenegrin

Kolašin

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 239/06

4,712 EUR

17440/07

07/04/2007

Miroslav ŠUKOVIĆ

(the fifth applicant)

Montenegrin

Podgorica

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 1029/05

4,712 EUR

17367/07

07/04/2007

Nedeljko KADIĆ

(the sixth applicant)

Montenegrin

Kolašin

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 919/05

4,712 EUR

17356/07

07/04/2007

Veselin ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

(the seventh applicant)

Montenegrin

Podgorica

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 988/05

5,555 EUR

17352/07

P 1010/05

17395/07

07/04/2007

Danka STANIŠIĆ

(the eighth applicant)

Montenegrin

Danilovgrad

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 1011/05

4,712 EUR

17402/07

07/04/2007

Slavka RAKOČEVIĆ

(the ninth applicant)

Montenegrin

Nikšić

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 1022/05

4,712 EUR

17424/07

07/04/2007

Dragica RAJKOVIĆ

(the tenth applicant)

Montenegrin

Podgorica

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 906/05

4,712 EUR

17447/07

07/04/2007

Duška NOVAKOVIĆ

(the eleventh applicant)

Montenegrin

Podgorica

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 116/06

4,712 EUR

17350/07

07/04/2007

Budislav MINIĆ

(the twelfth applicant)

Montenegrin

Kolašin

Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 240/06

5,555 EUR

17343/07

P 1023/05

17346/07

P 12/03 and 153/03

17318/07

07/04/2007

Slavka LAKIĆEVIĆ

(the thirteenth applicant)

Serbian

Kula

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 985/05

4,712 EUR

17358/07

07/04/2007

Milan LAKIĆEVIĆ

(the fourteenth applicant)

Serbian

Sivac

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 1026/05

4,712 EUR

17383/07

07/04/2007

Slavica BULATOVIĆ

(the fifteenth applicant)

Montenegrin

Belgrade

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 1024/05

4,712 EUR

17417/07

07/04/2007

Duška POP MANIĆ

(the sixteenth applicant)

Serbian

Belgrade

Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ

P 89/06

4,712 EUR

Menu

VUJISIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

VUJISIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO