LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
BELIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Doc ref: 26271/20, 26273/20, 26280/20, 31976/20, 32142/20, 32149/20, 32153/20, 32242/20, 32247/20, 32258/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-215227
Document date: December 9, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
BELIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Doc ref: 26271/20, 26273/20, 26280/20, 31976/20, 32142/20, 32149/20, 32153/20, 32242/20, 32247/20, 32258/20, ... • ECHR ID: 001-215227
Document date: December 9, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26271/20 Miladija BELIĆ against Serbia and 19 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 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 Ms B. Župić, 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 of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies 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 2 July 2020 and 18 February 2021 the sums awarded in the domestic decisions at issue were paid by the State in accordance with 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 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
(non-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
26271/20
22/06/2020
Miladija BELIĆ
1961Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
26273/20
22/06/2020
Šuhra ŠEHOVIĆ
1960Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
26280/20
22/06/2020
Mersija SALKOVIĆ
1970Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
31976/20
24/06/2017
Nezrina MADŽOVIĆ
1966Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32142/20
24/06/2020
Mehdija KAÄŒAPOR
1960Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32149/20
24/06/2020
Vasvija PRTINAC
1964Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32153/20
24/06/2020
Sebiha HAMIDOVIĆ
1961Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32242/20
24/06/2020
Magbula KLADNIÄŒANIN
1957Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32247/20
24/06/2020
Rifat KLADNIÄŒANIN
1953Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32258/20
24/06/2020
Esada GUSINJAC
1964Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32274/20
24/06/2020
Hata ZEĆIROVIĆ
1965Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32291/20
24/06/2020
Raza ZEĆIROVIĆ
1963Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
32334/20
24/06/2020
Alija ZEKOVIĆ
1955Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
17617/21
24/06/2020
Pajaz MAVRIĆ
1957Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
17626/21
24/06/2020
Muamera KOLAÅ INAC
1962Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
18/02/2021
17633/21
24/06/2020
Belkisa ŽUPIĆ
1967Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
18/02/2021
17634/21
24/06/2020
Fahrija ELJESKOVIĆ
1959Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
17643/21
24/06/2020
Emina MEHMETI
1958Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
17645/21
24/06/2020
Safija DUPLJAK
1948Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
17648/21
24/06/2020
Zineta JAHIĆ
1968Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003
03/03/2004
02/07/2020
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
