SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF JASAVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO
\n(Application no. 32655\/11)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n19 June 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Jasavi\u0107 v. Montenegro,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Ledi Bianku, President, and Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 29 May 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 an application (no. 32655\/11) against Montenegro lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Montenegrin national, Mr EkanJasavi\u0107 (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 13 May 2011.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was initially represented by Ms I. \u0160abovi\u0107, a lawyer practicing in Podgorica, and subsequently by Ms S. Lompar, also a lawyer based in Podgorica. The Montenegrin Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms Valentina Pavli\u010di\u0107.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 December 2015 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings in question was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule\u00a054\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Podgorica.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Between 3 December 2002 and 15 September 2003 the daily newspaper Dan published several articles about a human trafficking case in Montenegro, in which the applicant\u2019s name was mentioned in various contexts.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 October 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the publisher of the said newspaper, seeking compensation for non\u2011pecuniary damage due to violation of his honour and reputation caused by the publishing of untrue information about him.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 June 2010, following a remittal, the Podgorica First Instance Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant, ordering the publisher to pay the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages and to publish the judgment in Dan, the daily newspaper in question.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 October 2010 the Podgorica High Court amended this judgment by awarding the applicant EUR 4,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, which judgment was served on the applicant on 29November 2010.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on 14 January 2011.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 April 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 19 May 2011.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0SCOPE OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0In his observations, the applicant repeated one of his initial complaints, in particular his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the President of the Section, sitting in a\u00a0single\u2011judge formation, had already declared this complaint inadmissible on 16 December 2015, upon communication of the remainder of the application to the Government.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court recalls in this connection that it cannot examine the complaints which have already been declared inadmissible and that the scope of the case now before the Court is thus limited to the complaint which was communicated to the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Stebnitskiy\u00a0and\u00a0Komfort v. Ukraine, no. 10687\/02, \u00a7\u00a039, 3 February 2011, and Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17\u00a0December 1996, \u00a7\u00a7 44-45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996\u2011VI).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings at issue 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 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the judgment of the High Court of 22\u00a0October\u00a02010 had been the final decision for the purposes of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention, since a constitutional appeal had not been an effective domestic remedy at the relevant time. The applicant having lodged his application on 13 May 2011, had thus not complied with the six\u2011month requirement set out in Article 35\u00a71.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant disagreed.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 13 May 2011, that is after the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision had already been delivered to him.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court recalls that, although there may be exceptions justified by the specific circumstances of each case, the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592\/96, \u00a7 47, ECHR\u00a02001\u2011V (extracts)).<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes in this regard that at the time when the present application was lodged a constitutional appeal was not an effective remedy in respect of length of proceedings (see Boucke v.\u00a0Montenegro, no.\u00a026945\/06, \u00a7 79, 21 February 2012, \u017divaljevi\u0107 v.\u00a0Montenegro, no.\u00a017229\/04, \u00a7 68, 8 March 2011), and that it became effective on 20\u00a0March\u00a02015 (see Sini\u0161taj and Others v. Montenegro, nos.\u00a01451\/10, 7260\/10 and 7382\/10, \u00a7123, 24 November 2015, and Vu\u010delji\u0107v.\u00a0Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129\/15, \u00a731, 18 October 2016). It therefore considers that the applicant was not required to make use of this remedy at the time.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0However, the applicant received the High Court\u2019s judgment of 22\u00a0October 2010 on 29\u00a0November 2010 (see paragraph 8 above), which the Government never contested. Given that the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 13 May 2011, the Court concludes that the applicant clearly introduced his complaint within the six-month time\u2011limit, as set out in Article 35\u00a71 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, the Government\u2019s objection must be rejected.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Since the complaint in question is neither manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, nor inadmissible on any other grounds, it must be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The period to be taken into consideration began on 22 October 2004 and ended on 29 November 2010. The impugned proceedings thus lasted six years, one month and seven days at two instances.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case in question and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979\/96, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that neither the complexity of the case nor the applicant\u2019s conduct explains the length of proceedings. The Government did not supply any explanation for the delay or provide any comment on this matter.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined all the material submitted to it and in view of its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the absence of any justification, the length of proceedings of more than six years at two levels of jurisdiction was excessive and failed to meet the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 28.\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<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed non-pecuniary damage, but left it to the Court\u2019s discretion as to the exact amount.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested this claim.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0In the Court view, it is clear that the applicant sustained some non\u2011pecuniary loss arising from the breach of his right under Article 6 of the Convention, for which he should be compensated. The Court therefore considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed EUR 3,315 for costs and expenses incurred before domestic courts, together with statutory interest, and EUR\u00a0800 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested these claims.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, and the above criteria, the Court rejects the applicant\u2019s claim for costs and expenses before the domestic courts as they were not incurred in order to remedy the violation in issue, but considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 500 for the proceedings before the Court.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 35.\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\u00a0Declaresthe applicant\u2019s complaint about the length of proceedings admissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant within three months, the following amounts:<\/p>\n (i) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) less any amounts which may have already been paid in that connection at the domestic level, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;<\/p>\n (ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros) in respect of cost and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;<\/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 4.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 June 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Hasan Bak\u0131rc\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 LediBianku
\nNeboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro, 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