SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18288/21 Slavoljub ŽIVKOVIĆ against Serbia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 April 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 application lodged on 31 March 2021,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Ms T. Stojiljković, a lawyer practising in Leskovac.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 9 September 2021.

THE LAW

The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to inform the Court that the national authorities had acknowledged the alleged breach and that the applicant had already been awarded compensation in that connection. They therefore suggested that the Court should reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The applicant 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 Mladenović and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 41375/16 and 2 others, 29 August 2019).

Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the domestic court (see the appended table for further details) acknowledged the alleged breach and afforded redress for it in the overall amount of more than 1,000 euros. The applicant did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the application was given to the Government and no convincing explanation for this omission was provided.

Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the application, 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 this application constitutes 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,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 May 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application 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 company)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Final domestic decision

Enforcement order

Final domestic decisions concerning the claim that the proceedings had been of excessive length

Final domestic decisions concerning the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage

Amounts awarded

18288/21

31/03/2021

Slavoljub ŽIVKOVIĆ

1957Commercial Court in Leskovac, 22/05/2013

22/05/2013

Commercial Court in Leskovac, 19/05/2016

Commercial Court in Leskovac, 25/12/2017

Commercial Court in Leskovac, 20/12/2018

Commercial Court in Leskovac, 26/05/2017, 250 euros

Commercial Court in Leskovac, 25/05/2018, 400 euros

Commercial Court in Leskovac, 08/08/2019, 400 euros