Last Updated on November 26, 2020 by LawEuro
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MERCUR SYSTEM A.D. AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Applications nos. 5862/11 and 70851/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 November 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mercur System A.D. and Others v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 November 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Montenegro lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr R. Vouk, a lawyer practising in Klagenfurt, and by Ms M. Novaković, a lawyer practising in Podgorica.
3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE LOCUS STANDI OF mR sLOBODAN ŠLJIVANČANIN’S FAMILY MEMBERS TO PURSUE THE APPLICATION (NO. 70851/13)
7. The Court notes that Mr Slobodan Šljivančanin died on 6 March 2014 while the case was pending before the Court.
8. In a letter of 15 June 2016 the applicant’s wife and a son, Ms Dragica Šljivančanin and Mr Marko Šljivančanin, who are his legal heirs, expressed their intention to pursue the application.
9. The Court considers that the applicant’s wife and son have a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have the case heard within a reasonable time (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 1 and 39, ECHR 1999-VI, and Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006).
10. Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Dragica Šljivančanin and Mr Marko Šljivančanin have standing to continue the present proceedings.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …”
12. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
13. In the leading case of Stakić v. Montenegro, no. 49320/07, §§ 45-51, 2 October 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
14. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Stakić, cited above, § 65), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums for costs and expenses indicated in the appended table. It further notes that the applicants claimed different amounts in respect of pecuniary damage (relating to the substance of their respective domestic proceedings). However, the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged and, therefore, dismisses these claims. Moreover, since the applicants did not submit claims for just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, there is no call to award them any sum on that account.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that Ms Dragica Šljivančanin and Mr Marko Šljivančanin have standing to continue the present proceedings in Mr Slobodan Šljivančanin’s stead;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 November 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Ganna Yudkivska
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/ registration
|
Represen-tative’s
name and location |
Start of proceedings or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Montenegro
(3 March 2004) |
End of proceedings | Total length
Levels of jurisdiction |
Relevant domestic decision | Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 5862/11
20/01/2011 |
MERCUR SYSTEM A.D.
2000 |
Vouk Rudolf
Klagenfurt |
03/03/2004
|
08/02/2012
|
7 years, 11 months and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction |
Supreme Court of Montenegro Už.br. 08/02/2012 | 500 |
| 2. | 70851/13
18/10/2013 (32 applicants) |
Ljubomir Vujović
1951 Mihailo Milošević 1947 Boro Novaković 1954 Rade Nikolić 1958 Milorad Vukičević 1957 Rajko Lakić 1952 Radovan Radnjić 1953 Duško Kosović 1958 Savo Perunović 1938 Mladen Bulatović 1963 Zoran Jovićević 1971 Snežana Kosović 1972 Božidar Tatar 1958 Petar Bakić 1954 Slobodan Šljivančanin 1962 (purused by heirs: Dragica Šljivančanin and Marko Šljivančanin) Svetislav Milošević 1951 Vukosava Kljajević 1939 Milija Delević 1959 Damjan Živković 1967 Nenad Zarubica 1955 Miroslava Zindović-Leković 1968 Dragica Jelić Šljivančanin 1959 Miruna Martinović 1937 Dragoljub Vučić 1950 Gorčin Vukotić 1956 Zvonimir Lukić 1955 Branislav Orlandić 1937 Danica Kažić 1943 Budimir Đukanović 1954 Milan Cvetkovski 1955 Goran Šćepanović 1962 Srđan Radović 1965 |
Novaković Marika
Podgorica |
03/03/2004
|
09/05/2013
|
9 years, 2 months and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
|
500 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply