BELIĆ BABIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Doc ref: 23200/20, 23201/20, 25248/20, 25431/20, 25432/20, 25566/20, 25649/20, 25741/20, 25841/20, 25842/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-219439
Document date: August 25, 2022
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 5 Outbound citations:
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23200/20 Branka BELIĆ BABIĆ against Serbia and 25 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 August 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski , President,
Gilberto Felici ,
Diana Sârcu , judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr R. ÄŒakara, a lawyer practising in Novi Pazar.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 20 May 2021.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government submitted that the final domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour had actually been enforced. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
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 Nikolić and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 48162/18 and 8 others, 21 January 2021).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that between 15 December 2020 and 22 February 2021 the sums awarded in the domestic decisions at issue were paid by the State in accordance with the domestic law (see Stevanović and Others v. Serbia , nos. 43815/17 and 15 others, § 17, 27 August 2019). 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 15 September 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski Acting Deputy Registrar President
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
Year of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia (3 March 2004)
Date of enforcement of domestic decisions
23200/20
04/06/2020
Branka BELIĆ BABIĆ
1964Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
23201/20
04/06/2020
Muamera RAMČIĆ
1954Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25248/20
28/05/2020
Semir KAMBOVIĆ
1988Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25431/20
10/06/2020
Milica KLISARIĆ - SARIĆ
1962Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25432/20
10/06/2020
Sabaheta ŠAĆIROVIĆ NUROVIĆ
1960Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25566/20
11/06/2020
Ismeta ROŽAJAC
1957Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
25649/20
02/06/2020
Miladija ĐURKOVIĆ
1969Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25741/20
05/06/2020
Ismet Å USTERAC
1954Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25841/20
09/06/2020
Radomirka PETROVIĆ
1961Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25842/20
09/06/2020
Sadija BRUNČEVIĆ KAČAR
1964Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
25856/20
01/06/2020
Hamo VATIĆ
1950Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
25862/20
03/06/2020
Cmiljana VULOVIĆ
1958Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
26763/20
09/06/2020
Senabija ĐUKIĆ
1963Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
26767/20
09/06/2020
Senada FERIZOVIĆ BAHTIJAREVIĆ
1966Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
26770/20
09/06/2020
Bećira BILALOVIĆ
1970Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
26778/20
09/06/2020
Nusreta HASIĆ
1960Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
26808/20
02/06/2020
Slobodan VRANIĆ
1970Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
26814/20
12/06/2020
Mladen MAKOJEVIĆ
1974Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
26858/20
03/06/2020
Mujesira ZAIMOVIĆ
1958Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
26868/20
05/06/2020
Darko MARKOVIĆ
1973Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
26870/20
05/06/2020
Sanija HAMIDOVIĆ
1972Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
15/12/2020
30881/20
23/06/2020
Rada MILOJEVIĆ
1966Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
22/02/2021
31760/20
23/06/2020
Sejdo MEHMEDOVIĆ
1946Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
32852/20
16/07/2020
Mevljuda LATOVIĆ
1969Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
32887/20
20/07/2020
Ljiljana MIJAILOVIĆ
1967Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021
33046/20
16/07/2020
Adem MURIĆ
1962Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
19/02/2021