Search
document

KRSTIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

Doc ref: 34170/19, 37995/19, 57176/19, 57178/19, 17035/20, 17038/20, 17314/20, 18503/20, 23203/20, 23204/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-215221

Document date: December 9, 2021

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 4

KRSTIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

Doc ref: 34170/19, 37995/19, 57176/19, 57178/19, 17035/20, 17038/20, 17314/20, 18503/20, 23203/20, 23204/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-215221

Document date: December 9, 2021

Cited paragraphs only

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34170/19 Srđan KRSTIĆ against Serbia and 11 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 December 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Pauliine Koskelo, President, Branko Lubarda, Marko Bošnjak, 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 S. Stajić, a lawyer practising in Lebane.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 25 March 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 applicants had failed to inform the Court that the competent court had acknowledged the alleged breach and that the applicants had sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a consequence of it (see the appended table). Moreover, all the applicants had been awarded compensation in that connection. 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 but considered it 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 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 Denić and Stamenković v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 58944/18 and 58948/18, 5 November 2020).

Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the domestic courts acknowledged the alleged breach and afforded redress for it. The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications 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 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 the 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 13 January 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Pauliine Koskelo Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant

Year of birth

Relevant domestic decision

Enforcement order

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

34170/19

17/06/2019

Srđan KRSTIĆ

1976Municipal Court in Lebane, 24/06/2004

Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005

11/11/2011

Commercial Court in Leskovac

07/02/2019

37995/19

08/07/2019

Goran PUJIĆ

1962Municipal Court in Lebane, 22/02/2006

02/07/2009

Commercial Court in Leskovac

02/11/2018

57176/19

23/10/2019

Suzana SAVIĆ

1973Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005

11/09/2007

Commercial Court in Leskovac

29/05/2019

57178/19

23/10/2019

Bojan DINIĆ

1967Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005

11/09/2007

Commercial Court in Leskovac

12/04/2019

17035/20

17/03/2020

Bojan DODIĆ

1974Municipal Court in Lebane, 24/06/2004

Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005

11/09/2007

Commercial Court in Leskovac

27/12/2018

17038/20

23/03/2020

Sveta KRSTIĆ

1965Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005

11/09/2007

Commercial Court in Leskovac

11/02/2019

17314/20

17/03/2020

Dragoljub MILJKOVIĆ

1963Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005

11/09/2007

Commercial Court in Leskovac

07/05/2018

18503/20

30/04/2020

Bojan PAVLOVIĆ

1970Municipal Court in Lebane, 02/03/2007

Municipal Court in Lebane, 17/11/2008

Municipal Court in Lebane, 03/06/2009

11/09/2007

11/11/2011

Commercial Court in Leskovac

07/06/2018

23203/20

30/05/2020

Vesna TODOROVIĆ

1960Commercial Court in Leskovac, 15/01/2004

14/05/2004

Commercial Court in Leskovac

17/07/2018

23204/20

30/05/2020

Dragan BANKOVIĆ

1954Municipal Court in Lebane, 09/06/2003

Municipal Court in Lebane, 13/07/2005

31/08/2004

16/04/2010

Commercial Court in Leskovac

05/11/2018

23482/20

30/04/2020

Dragica ĐENIĆ

1946Municipal Court in Lebane, 28/01/2005

15/11/2005

Commercial Court of Appeal in Belgrade

20/07/2018

25567/20

10/06/2020

Dragica IVKOVIĆ

1953Municipal Court in Lebane, 18/12/2001

14/12/2012

Commercial Court in Leskovac

18/09/2018

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant