CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .s82B56815 { width:201.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s41FDBC30 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3C79BC7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; font-size:10pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s734752C4 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:4.51pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC495962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 17323/07 Slavka LAKIĆEVIĆ against Montenegro and 7 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30   September 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged between 8 December 2006 and 7 April 2007, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The seven applicants in the present cases lodged eight applications (the sixth applicant lodged two applications) between 6 December 2006 and 7   April 2007 (for additional personal details see the attached Annex). They are all represented before the Court by Mr R. Šuković and Mr B. Minić (who is also the third applicant), lawyers practising in Bijelo Polje and Kolašin, respectively, except for the third applicant himself, who is represented by Mr R. Šuković alone. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Pažin. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows: On an unspecified date in 2003 the third applicant filed a compensation claim against the State, maintaining that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated, as one set of enforcement proceedings to which he was a party was still ongoing. On 23 December 2004 the Court of First Instance ( Osnovni sud ) in Bijelo Polje ruled partly in his favour, relying on section 11 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 7 of the Courts Act, as well as on Article 6 of the Convention. It would appear that on an unspecified date thereafter the State filed an appeal. There is no information in the case files as to the outcome of the appeal. Between 1 January 2005 and 28 December 2005 all the applicants filed compensation claims against the State, maintaining that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated, as a number of civil proceedings, previously instituted by or against them, were still ongoing at the time. On 16 June 2005 and 2 June 2006, respectively, the Court of First Instance in Bijelo Polje ruled against the third applicant upon two other such compensation claims, on the grounds that these proceedings in respect of which he had complained of the length, were concluded within a reasonable time and that the third applicant had contributed to the length thereof, respectively. On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud ) issued a legal opinion ( pravni stav ) specifying that the national legal system of Montenegro did not have a legal remedy for violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, that the courts in Montenegro had no jurisdiction to rule on the matter and that all those who considered that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated could lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights. Between 11 July 2006 and 28 September 2006 the Court of First Instance in Bijelo Polje decided it had no jurisdiction to rule on the applicants’ compensation claims and rejected them. These decisions were upheld by the High Court ( Viši sud ) in Bijelo Polje by 3 May 2007. In so doing both courts referred to the Supreme Court’s legal opinion. On 1 February 2007 and 18 October 2006, respectively, the High Court in Bijelo Polje quashed the first-instance judgments issued on 16 June 2005 and 2 June 2006 in respect of the third applicant and rejected his claims, also relying on the said legal opinion. The applicants did not attempt to make use of an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) to the Supreme Court in view of the fact that the said opinion was issued by that very court. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and, alternatively, under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of access to a court in that the domestic courts refused to examine their compensation claims on the merits. THE LAW The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. Between 30 April 2014 and 11 July 2014 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Montenegro in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay each of them ex gratia (per applicant and not per application) the amounts specified in the appended table to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage, which includes costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. These sums will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. These payments will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.   Abel Campos   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name Nationality Place of residence Represented by Case number before the domestic courts Friendly settlement amount   17323/07 07/04/2007 Slavka LAKIĆEVIĆ (the first applicant) Serbian Kula   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 1013/05   3,760 EUR   17330/07 07/04/2007 Snežana OBRADOVIĆ (the second applicant) Serbian Sivac   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 1027/05   3,760 EUR   17351/07 07/04/2007 Budislav MINIĆ (the third applicant) Montenegrin Kolašin   Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 258/06 3,760 EUR   17365/07 07/04/2007 Milan LAKIĆEVIĆ (the fourth applicant) Serbian Sivac   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 1012/05     3,760 EUR   17392/07 07/04/2007 Mijomir MEDENICA (the fifth applicant) Montenegrin Kolašin   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 922/05 3,760 EUR   30603/08 08/12/2006 Rodoljub ADAMOVIĆ (the sixth applicant) Serbian Niš   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 12/06 4,840 EUR   30608/08 08/12/2006 Rodoljub ADAMOVIĆ (the sixth applicant) Serbian Niš   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 115/06     30614/08 08/12/2006 Zorka GAZIBARA-ADAMOVIĆ (the seventh applicant) Serbian Niš   Budislav MINIĆ and Radivoje ŠUKOVIĆ P. br. 194/06 3,760 EUR