THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF KNE\u017dEVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
\n(Applications nos. 54787\/16 and 6 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 October 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kne\u017eevi\u0107 and Others v. Serbia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Pere Pastor Vilanova, President, andFato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in seven separate applications (nos. 54787\/16, 55000\/16, 55009\/16, 55034\/16, 55203\/16, 58557\/16, and 60159\/16)against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are all Serbian nationals. Additional personal information and other relevant details, as well as the dates of introduction of their complaints before the Court, are set out in the appendix to this judgment.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were all represented by Ms D. Jankovi\u0107, a lawyer practising in \u010ca\u010dak. The Serbian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plav\u0161i\u0107.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 April 2017 the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the length of the enforcement proceedings were communicated to the Government and the remainders of their applications were declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. After having considered the Government\u2019s objection, the Court rejects it.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of the excessive length of enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the cases as presented by the parties may be summarized as follows.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings before the civil courts<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the first, second, third and fourth applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Between 18 December 2000 and 16 April 2003, the first, second, third and fourth applicants lodged separate civil complaints with the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court (Op\u0161tinski sud u \u010ca\u010dku) against the same socially owned\u2011company, Akcionarsko dru\u0161tvo Fabrika reznog alata \u010ca\u010dak, requesting the payment of salary related damages.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 December 2007, the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 July 2008 \u010ca\u010dak District Court (Okru\u017eni sud u \u010ca\u010dku) upheld this judgment on appeal.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 March 2009 the applicants lodged a joinedenforcement request which was accepted by \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court on 2 April 2009.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the fifth applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 June 2005 the fifth applicant lodged her civil complaint with the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court against Akcionarsko dru\u0161tvo Fabrika reznog alata \u010ca\u010dak requesting the payment of an allowance.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 April 2008 the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fifth applicant. In the absence of an appeal, this judgment subsequently became final.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 October 2009 the fifth applicant lodged an enforcement request which was accepted by \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court on 28 October 2009.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the sixth applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 August 2003 the sixth applicant lodged her civil complaint with the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court against Akcionarsko dru\u0161tvo Fabrika reznog alata \u010ca\u010dak requesting the payment of salary related damages.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 April 2008 the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the sixth applicant.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 October 2008 the \u010ca\u010dak District Court upheld this judgment on appeal.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 December 2008 the sixth applicant lodged an enforcement request which was accepted by \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court on 08 January 2009.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the seventh applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 April 2003 the seventh applicant lodged his civil complaint with the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court against Akcionarsko dru\u0161tvo Fabrika reznog alata \u010ca\u010dak requesting the payment of salary related damages.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 November 2008 the \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court ruled in favour of the seventh applicant. In the absence of an appeal, this judgment subsequently became final.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 April 2009 the seventh applicant lodged an enforcement request which was accepted by \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court on 4 February 2010.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0First set of proceedings before the Constitutional Court<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Since the judgment rendered in favour of the applicants remained unenforced, on 24 February 2014, the sixth and the seventh applicants and on 19 May 2014, the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants, lodged their appeals with the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In so doing, the applicants complained about the length of enforcement proceedings in question and the ultimate non-enforcement.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Pursuant to the Amendments to Court Organization Act (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o ure\u0111enju sudova; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 101\/13) the complaint concerning the length of proceedings was transmitted to the Kragujevac Court of Appeal which then itself forwarded the matter to the \u010ca\u010dak High Court (Vi\u0161i sud u \u010ca\u010dku), i.e. theformer \u010ca\u010dak District Court.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings concerning the complaints about the excessive length of enforcement proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the first, second, third and fourth applicants<\/em><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 January 2015 the \u010ca\u010dak High Court found that the first, second, third and fourth applicants\u2019 right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded them 200 euros (EUR) each in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n It, further, ordered the \u010ca\u010dak Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u \u010ca\u010dku), i.e.the former \u010ca\u010dak Municipal Court, to speed up the enforcement proceedings and enforce the judgment rendered in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 February 2015 the applicants complained to the Supreme Court of Cassation claiming that the compensation awarded was too low and, accordingly, inadequate for the violation found. On 26 March 2015 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicants\u2019 appeals.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the fifth applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 14\u00a0January\u00a02015 the \u010ca\u010dak High Court found that the fifth applicant\u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded her EUR 100 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings. It also ordered to the\u010ca\u010dak Court of First Instance to speed up the proceedings and enforce the judgment.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 February 2015 the fifth applicant complained to the Supreme Court of Cassation of the insufficient redress. Her appeal, however, was rejected on 22\u00a0April\u00a02015.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the sixth applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 December 2014the \u010ca\u010dak High Court found that the sixth applicant\u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded her EUR 300 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings. Her appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation concerning the amount of the compensation awarded was rejected on 6\u00a0May\u00a02015.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the seventh applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 February 2015 the \u010ca\u010dak High Court found that the seventh applicant\u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded him EUR 80 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation concerning the amount of the compensation awarded was rejected on 19\u00a0May\u00a02015.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Second set of proceeding before the Constitutional Court<\/strong><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0Between 3 August 2015 and 30 December 2015 all applicants lodged new appeals with the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0They complained, inter alia, about the failure of domestic authorities to enforce the final judgments rendered in their favour, and that the amount of compensation awarded by the competent courts in respect of the breach of their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been too low.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0Between 12 May 2016 and 9 June 2016 the Constitutional Court found that due to the failure of domestic authorities to enforce the judgments rendered in the applicants\u2019 favour their right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions had, indeed, also been violated. The Constitutional Court, accordingly, awarded the applicants with pecuniary damages in the amountsgranted by the judgments that had remained unenforced.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0However, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the insufficient redress as regards the violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time since it considered the awards given by the domestic courts asreasonable compensation for the violations found.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The Constitutional Court lastly emphasized that, in any event and due to the changes in legislation, it could not have assessed the specific reasons for the amounts awarded by other courts in this respect.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Amendments to the Court Organization Act (Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o ure\u0111enju sudova; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 101\/13), being an Act relevant to the present case, had beenin force between 1\u00a0January\u00a02014 and 1\u00a0January 2016 when the entirely new Trial within a Reasonable Time Act (Zakon o za\u0161titi prava na su\u0111enje u razumnom roku, published in Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 40\/2015) entered into force.<\/p>\n In accordance with the said Amendments, competence to deal with the alleged breaches of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in cases where the impugned proceedings were still ongoing was givendirectly to higher courts.Where a violation of a right to a trial within a reasonable time was found, thesehigher courts could award compensation for the non\u2011pecuniary damage suffered and order lower courts to expedite and bring to a conclusion the impugned proceedingswithin a certain period of time. These decisionscould be appealed before the Supreme Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n The Constitutional Court was, in accordance with the Amendments, left with the competence to deal with the alleged violations of theright to a trial within a reasonable time in cases where the proceedings before regular courts had already ended.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement, laid down in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal…\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on the case of Vidakovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.) (no. 16231\/07, 24\u00a0May 2011) the Government maintained that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention given that the redress afforded by domestic courts had been adequate and sufficient.In the alternative, they claimed that in view of the grave socio-economic situation of the country and the limited budgetary resources it could not have been expected of domestic courts to award the applicants with higher sums than they did in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection, the Government further noted the changes in legislation (see paragraph 36 above) which precluded the Constitutional Court from re-examining the amounts of compensation awarded to the applicants.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants contested these arguments and claimed that they are still victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the above objections raised by the Government fall to be examined under the issue of the applicants\u2019 victim status (see, mutatis mutandis, Vidakovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), cited above).<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0Having said that, the Court recalls that an applicant\u2019s status as a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on the fact whether the domestic authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and, if necessary, provided appropriate redress in relation thereto. Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (seeCocchiarellav.\u00a0Italy [GC], no. 64886\/01, \u00a7 71, ECHR 2006\u2011V; and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656\/99, 3 June 2004).<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Court, in this respect, notes that the domestic authorities expressly acknowledged the breach of applicants\u2019 right to obtain the enforcement of final domestic court\u2019s decisions rendered in their favour within a reasonable time (see paragraphs 25 – 30 above). Accordingly, the first condition laid down in the Court\u2019s case law is satisfied.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 victim status then depends on whether the redress afforded in respect of the breach found was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article\u00a041 of the Convention (see Dubjakov\u00e1 v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299\/01, 19\u00a0October2004).<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection, the Court recalls that for a person to lose the victim status compensation has to be sufficient and reasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that compensations offered by domestic authorities in the present cases are significantly lower compared with the sums awarded for the non-enforcement of judgments rendered against companies predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital (see, for example, Sto\u0161i\u0107 v. Serbia, no. 64931\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 66 and 67, 1 October 2013, and Ri\u0111i\u0107 and\u00a0Others v. Serbia, nos. 53736\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7 84, 1 July 2014).<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the material in the files and having regard to the particular circumstances of the cases, the Court considers that the sums offered to the applicants cannot be considered sufficient and therefore amount to appropriate redress for the violations suffered.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore concludes that the applicants did not lose their status as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Government\u2019s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The Court otherwise considers that the applicants\u2019complaintsare not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants reaffirmed their complaints, while the Government made no comment.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The Court recalls that the execution of a judgment given by a court must be regarded as an integral part of the \u201ctrial\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a06 (see Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510, \u00a7 40). A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances. It may not, however, be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 \u00a7 1 (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774\/93, \u00a7 74, ECHR 1999-V).<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has also already held that the respondent State is responsible for the debts of companies predominantly comprised of socially\/State owned capital, which is why neither the lack of its own funds nor the indigence of the debtor can be cited as a valid excuse for any excessive delays in this particular enforcement context (see, among many other authorities, R. Ka\u010dapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269\/06 and\u00a05\u00a0others, \u00a7 114, 15 January 2008; and Crni\u0161anin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835\/05 and 3 others, \u00a7 124, 13 January 2009).<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0Besides, the Court notes that the Serbian authorities have advanced no reasons for their failure to take all necessary measures in order to enforce the judgments at issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Ri\u0111i\u0107 and Others v. Serbia, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 78 and 79) where a final judgment rendered against a socially owned company had been enforced following a five to seven years delay.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above and in particular the Court\u2019s finding regarding the victim status of the applicants (see paragraph 49 above), the Court concludes that in the present case the length of the enforcement proceedings in question was excessive and failed to meet the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage, costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered. They also claimed EUR 2,000 jointly for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered the sums requested to be excessive.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0In view of its case-law (see Sto\u0161i\u0107 v. Serbia, cited above, and Ri\u0111i\u0107 and Others v. Serbia, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable and equitable to award EUR 2,000 to each applicant, less any amount which may have already been paid in that regard at the national level, which sum is to cover all non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), less any amount which may have already been paid in that regard at the national level, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, which is to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pere Pastor Vilanova <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n number and<\/strong><\/p>\n date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n place of residence nationality<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 10\/09\/2016<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1955<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian<\/td>\n P1.br.1232\/2002<\/p>\n 26 December 2007<\/td>\n I.br. 468\/09<\/p>\n 2 April 2009<\/td>\n (U\u017e-4544\/2014)<\/p>\n 12 May 2016<\/td>\n 10\/09\/2016<\/td>\n JOVI\u010cI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n 01\/11\/1963<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n P1.br.1232\/2002<\/p>\n 26 December 2007<\/td>\n I.br. 468\/09<\/p>\n 2 April 2009<\/td>\n (U\u017e-4544\/2014)<\/p>\n 12 May 2016<\/td>\n 10\/09\/2016<\/td>\n STAN\u010cI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n 25\/1 1\/1952<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian<\/td>\n P1.br.1232\/2002<\/p>\n 26 December 2007<\/td>\n I.br. 468\/09<\/p>\n 2 April 2009<\/td>\n (U\u017e-4544\/2014)<\/p>\n 12 May 2016<\/td>\n 10\/09\/2016<\/td>\n 13\/08\/1960<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian<\/td>\n P1.br.1232\/2002<\/p>\n 26 December 2007<\/td>\n I.br. 468\/09<\/p>\n 2 April 2009<\/td>\n (U\u017e-4544\/2014)<\/p>\n 12 May 2016<\/td>\n number and<\/strong><\/p>\n date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n place of residence nationality<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 16\/09\/2016<\/td>\n 05\/10\/1958<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian<\/td>\n P1.br.858\/05<\/p>\n 21 April 2008<\/td>\n I.br. 1438\/08<\/p>\n 28 October 2008<\/td>\n (U\u017e-4535\/2014)<\/p>\n 19 May 2016<\/td>\n 23\/09\/2016<\/td>\n KOTLAJI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n 03\/03\/1951<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian<\/td>\n P1.br.1534\/03<\/p>\n 24 April 2008<\/td>\n I.br.1820\/08<\/p>\n 8 January 2009<\/td>\n (U\u017e-1683\/2014)<\/p>\n 26 May 2016<\/td>\n 07\/10\/2016<\/td>\n 07\/02\/1946<\/p>\n \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Serbian<\/td>\n P1.br.886\/05<\/p>\n 11 November 2008<\/td>\n I.br. 9441\/10<\/p>\n 4 February 2010<\/td>\n (U\u017e-1682\/2014)<\/p>\n 9 June 2016<\/td>\n
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/strong>No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant name date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n Final domestic decision (issuing authority \/ case no., adopted on)<\/strong><\/td>\n Enforcement order (enforcement authority, case no., date of order)<\/strong><\/td>\n Constitutional Court decision details<\/strong><\/td>\n Amounts awarded domestically for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant in euros<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 54787\/16<\/p>\n Vinko KNE\u017dEVI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-5478\/2015<\/p>\n 200 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 55000\/16<\/p>\n Sre<\/strong>\u0107<\/strong>ko<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-5478\/2015<\/p>\n 200 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 55009\/16<\/p>\n Dragutin<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-5478\/2015<\/p>\n 200 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 55034\/16<\/p>\n Svetlana MILOJEVI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-5478\/2015<\/p>\n 200 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n
\n<\/strong>No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant name date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n Final domestic decision (issuing authority \/ case no., adopted on)<\/strong><\/td>\n Enforcement order (enforcement authority, case no., date of order)<\/strong><\/td>\n Constitutional Court decision details<\/strong><\/td>\n Amounts awarded domestically for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant in euros <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 55203\/16<\/p>\n Zagorka \u0160KILJEVI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-4358\/2015<\/p>\n 100 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 58557\/16<\/p>\n Vera<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-4356\/2015<\/p>\n 300 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 60159\/16<\/p>\n Prvoslav RAKOVI\u0106<\/strong><\/p>\n Dragana JANKOVI\u0106<\/td>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n Municipal Court in \u010ca\u010dak<\/p>\n U\u017e-7856\/2015<\/p>\n 80 euros<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n