Communicated on 22 November 2018<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 12219\/13
\nLjubicaMR\u0160O
\nagainst Serbia
\nlodged on 15 January 2013<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in the first case, Ms LjubicaMr\u0161o, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Novi Sad. She is represented before the Court by Mr P. Bogovac, a lawyer practising in the same town.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Following the applicant\u2019s dismissal by her employer, on 16 June 2003 she lodged a claim with the Municipal Court (Op\u0161tinskisud) in Novi Sad, seeking annulment of this decision and reinstatement, as well as legal costs.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 February 2009 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 June 2010 the Appeals Court (Apelacionisud) in Novi Sadreversed this judgment and rejected the applicant\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 June 2011 the Supreme Cassation Court (Vrhovnisud) rejected a further appeal by the applicant on points of law (revizija).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0As evidenced by the certificates of receipt (dostavnicazali\u010dnodostavljanjepismena), the applicant\u2019s lawyers Mr N.T. and Mr M.K. received this judgment on 30 August and 12 September 2011 respectively.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 October 2011 a third lawyer Mr P.B. lodged a constitutional appeal on behalf of the applicant. Lawyer M.K. has been a partner in his office.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 June 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed this constitutional appeal as out of time (neblagovremenaustavna\u017ealba). In doing so, it held that the relevant judgment had been served on the applicant on 30 August 2011, without mentioning the second delivery, and therefore that the constitutional appeal had been lodged outside the statutory thirty-day time-limit (see paragraph 16, Article 84 of the Constitutional Court Act under \u201cRelevant domestic law\u201d below). This decision was served on the applicant on 23 July 2012.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Constitutional Court Act (Zakon o Ustavnomsudu; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 109\/07)<\/em><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of this Act read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 7 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201cThe decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final, enforceable and binding.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 84 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201cA constitutional appeal may be lodged within thirty days of receipt of the individual decision or the date of commission of the actions … [in question] …\u201d<\/p>\n Article 89 \u00a7 2<\/p>\n \u201cWhen the Constitutional Court finds that an … individual decision or action has violated or denied a human or minority right or a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, it shall revoke the … decision in question or ban the continuation of such action or order the implementation of other specific measures as well as the removal of all adverse consequences within a specified period of time.\u201d<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Constitutional Court Rules of Procedure (Poslovnik o raduUstavnogsuda; published in OG RS no. 24\/08, 27\/08 and 76\/11)<\/em><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of this Act read as follows:<\/p>\n Rule 91: Request for the rectification of an adopted decision<\/p>\n \u201cThe Constitutional Court shall place on its agenda a reasoned written request by its President, a judge or a working body, for the rectification of an adopted decision (odluka, re\u0161enjeilizaklju\u010dak), provided that the decision has not already been dispatched … [to the appellant]…<\/p>\n A fresh new court\u2019s session shall be scheduled to examine whether rectification of the original decision is necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n Rule 93: Publication of an amended or supplementary legal opinion<\/p>\n \u201cAn amended opinion of the Constitutional Court shall be recorded in the minutes taken at the Constitutional Court\u2019s regular session upon its adoption. Such … [an opinion] … and … [its] … reasoning shall be cited in the first Constitutional Court decision or ruling given … [thereafter] …\u201d<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Opinion adopted at the Constitutional Court\u2019s session of 5 February 2009<\/em><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0A party to proceedings is to be notified that, pursuant to Article 166 \u00a7 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, all decisions of the Constitutional Court are final, enforceable and binding, and that there is no legal basis to lodge a complaint, appeal or constitutional appeal against the decisions of the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0If a party submits a request for rectification of an adopted decision, this does not lead to the opening of a new application. After the request has been reviewed by a judge rapporteur, the interested party will be informed of the above rules by way of a letter signed by the court registrar.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Supplementary opinion of the Constitutional Court of 2 June 2011<\/em><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In exceptional circumstances, the Constitutional Court may revise its decision on a constitutional appeal, even after it has been dispatched to the appellant, in a manner and in accordance with the rules prescribed by Rule\u00a091 of the Rules of Procedure if the original decision was based on a manifest error of the court that cannot otherwise be rectified.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant law on starting date for calculation of the time-limit<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Serbia (initially the Supreme Court\u2019s Civil Division) adopted a Legal Opinion (Pravnizaklju\u010dakusvojen 27. novembra 2010. nasedniciGra\u0111anskogodeljenja VKS, preimenovan u Pravnoshvatanjenasednici 7. februara 2011) concerning the calculation of time-limit for lodging an appeal or other legal remedy when a party has appointed several statutory representatives or lawyers to represent him\/her\/it. It states that in such case, and if the competent court had not used the power given by Article 132 \u00a7 2 of the Civil Proceedings Act to deliver the decision only to one of them, but dispatched the decision to all representatives\/lawyers, the time-limit for lodging an appeal starts to run separately\/individually from the date the decision had been served on each of them.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Further, under Article 103 \u00a7 4 of the Civil Proceedings Act, it is the next day after the date of service of the judgment that is taken as the starting date for calculation of the time-limit.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that she was unlawfully denied access to the Constitutional Court of Serbia because that court erroneously viewed her constitutional appeal as having been lodged outside the relevant time-limit.<\/p>\n She also complains under Article 6 about the protracted length of the relevant labour-related proceedings.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Has the applicant properly exhausted the domestic remedies before<\/p>\n the Constitutional Court? In that connection, the parties are invited to comment on and provide the copies of the relevant documents and any relevant jurisprudence in respect of:<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0the content of the rejection letters that the applicant had received from the Constitutional Court as to the final nature of the court\u2019s decisions?<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0was the supplementary opinion of the Constitutional Court of 2\u00a0June 2011 published, and if so, where and when (see paragraphs 11 (Rule 93) and 14 of the attached \u201cStatement of facts\u201d)?<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been denied, in breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the \u201cright to a court\u201d in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in view of the Constitutional Court\u2019s finding that her constitutional appeal was lodged outside the statutory time-limit (see, for example, Zemanov\u00e1 v. the Czech Republic, no. 6019\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 20-22, 13\u00a0December 2005, and Zvolsk\u00fd and Zvolsk\u00e1 v. the Czech Republic, no.\u00a046129\/99, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2002\u2011IX)?<\/p>\n The parties are also invited to submit the relevant domestic law and the case-law of the domestic courts in respect of the calculation of time-limit for lodging an appeal or other legal remedy when a party has appointed several statutory representatives or lawyers to represent him\/her\/it, including the lawyers from the same law firm (see Article 132 \u00a7 2 of the Civil Proceedings Act in conjunction with the Practice Direction of the Supreme Court\u2019s Civil Division adopted on 27 November 2010 and 7 February 2011 (Pravnizaklju\u010dakusvojen 27. novembra 2010.nasedniciGra\u0111anskogodeljenja VKS, preimenovan u Pravnoshvatanjenasednici 7. februara 2011)).<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, has the length of the applicant\u2019s domestic proceedings been excessive and, as such, in breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement contained in Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01?<\/p>\n