CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 février 2015

.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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC9D6F765 { width:209.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDE6F06A5 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .s13C8E8B1 { height:41.9pt } .s48661C90 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE02DD0AA { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sA9245398 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9188D7DF { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFBA46575 { height:35.95pt } .sE9A97A44 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8BDAE0D { margin-left:12.51pt; padding-left:5.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s83404D2B { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s9EA2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s1A3E9428 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top } .sD09CEEED { margin-left:17.51pt; padding-left:0.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s68BB2261 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F884D6A { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top } .sA9DECF98 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding:2.48pt 2.48pt 2.48pt 3.88pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:6pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 80775/12 Stanoje STOJKOVIĆ against Serbia and 10 other applications (see liste appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   February 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Dragoljub Popović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged between 12 December 2012 and 23 January 2013, Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants with their personal details is set out in the appendix. They were all represented by Mr. N. Antić, a lawyer practising in Vladičin Han. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić. A.     The facts as submitted by the applicants The applicants are former employees of DP PK Delišes (the debtor) , a socially-owned company. They all obtained final court judgments ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. At their request to that effect, they were issued enforcement orders in respect of these judgments. The details of the judgments and enforcements orders are in the appended table. The enforcement has never been carried out. B.     The facts submitted by the Government The Government informed the Court that all the applicants had withdrawn their claims for the enforcement of the judgments on various dates between 7 April 2005 and 28 August 2009, which had as a result the termination of the respective enforcement proceedings. The applicants did not lodge appeals against these decisions. The dates of the withdrawals of the requests for enforcement and the dates of the termination of the enforcement proceedings are indicated in the appended table. COMPLAINTS The applicants essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments rendered in their favour. These complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. THE LAW The Government asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. They pointed out that the applicants had omitted to inform the Court that the enforcement proceedings had been terminated at their request. The applicants did not dispute having withdrawn their requests for enforcement and having failed to appeal the decisions on termination of the enforcement proceedings, but argued that it was irrelevant. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information (see Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no 25101/05, 3 July 2007; and Simitzi-Papachristou and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 50634/11, § 36, 5   November 2013) or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset (see Kerechashvili , cited above) or where new significant developments occurred during the procedure (see Predescu v. Romania , no. 21447/03, §§   25-27, 2 December 2008; and Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia (dec.), no.   15433/07, 29 May 2012). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and   Others , cited above; Predescu , cited above, §§ 25-26; and Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013). The Court notes that the present applicants in their applications to the Court lodged between 12 December 2012 and 23 January 2013 complained that final court judgments rendered in their favour against a socially-owned company had not been enforced. However, they had already withdrawn their requests for enforcement of these judgments between 7 April 2005 and 28   August 2009, which had led to the final termination of the enforcement proceedings. The applicants’ complete silence on the termination of the enforcement proceedings while upholding their allegation that the judgments had not been enforced due to the debtor’s restructuring cannot be interpreted, in the Court’s view, as anything else but a failure to disclose information concerning the very core of the applications. Having regard to the importance of the applicants’ failure to disclose this information for the proper determination of the present cases, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention (see Gross v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject the applications as an abuse of the right of petition, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 26 February 2015.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth nationality Final domestic decision details Enforcement order details Date of withdrawal of the request for enforcement Date of termination of enforcement proceedings   80775/12 12/12/2012 Stanoje STOJKOVIĆ 13/02/1950 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 5 November 2003 2 February 2004 29 December 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 31 December 2003 31 March 2004 22 February 2005 7 April 2005 (with regard to all these judgments) 22 April 2005   81037/12 12/12/2012 Olivera MLADENOVIĆ 21/01/1974 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 3 September 2003 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 31 March 2004 10 August 2009 29 September 2009   3145/13 18/12/2012 Blagoja MILENKOVIC 19/12/1956 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 23 July 2003 29 January 2004 24 November 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 10 October 2003 6 April 2004 17 February 2005 14 April 2005 (with regard to all these judgments) 22 April 2005 25 April 2005 27 July 2005   5308/13 27/12/2012 Svetlana ĐORĐEVIĆ 08/02/1963 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 14 October 2003 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 27 November 2003 7 April 2005 17 October 2005   5348/13 27/12/2012 Mirjana STOŠIĆ 26/03/1951 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 11 July 2003 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 28 January 2004 19 May 2005 30 May 2005   5650/13 16/01/2013 Milan STANKOVIĆ 03/10/1952 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 28 May 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 3 February 2005 10 August 2009 5 October 2009   5657/13 15/01/2013 Vlada TASIĆ 26/07/1972 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 24 July 2003 22 January 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 26 December 2003 2 March 2004 18 May 2005 (with regard to both judgments) 30 May 2005 31 May 2005   5663/13 15/01/2013 Srdan VELIČKOVIĆ 06/09/1972 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 22 March 2003 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 17 May 2004 28 August 2009 15 October 2009   5669/13 16/01/2013 Novica DIMITRIJEVIĆ 17/10/1963 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 15 June 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 3 September 2004 7 April 2005 18 July 2005   8786/13 23/01/2013 Slavica DIMITRIJEVIĆ 10/03/1955 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 20 February 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 11 May 2004 22 April 2008 25 July 2008   9190/13 23/01/2013 Slavica DIMITRIJEVIĆ 01/01/1954 Serbian Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 20 February 2004 Municipal Court in Vladičin Han 11 May 2004 3 March 2005 25 May 2005 18 July 2005 4 May 2009