CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 juillet 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 } .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 } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 18545/10 Đorđe KOLICIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   July   2015 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Đorđe Kolicić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Belgrade. He was represented before the Court by Mr   L.   Krstić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić. The applicant was employed by a socially-owned company GIP   “Hidrotehnika-Beogradgradnja” AD (hereinafter “the debtor”), based in Belgrade. On 1 February 2006 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the debtor and shortly thereafter the applicant duly reported his claims concerning salary arrears and holiday pay to the insolvency administration. On 24 January 2007 and 12 November 2008 the Belgrade Commercial Court recognised the applicant’s claims. COMPLAINTS The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the decisions rendered in his 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 application inadmissible, since the applicant had received the full amounts of his claims recognized in the course of the insolvency proceedings. While acknowledging that he had received certain amount on the grounds of his claims, the applicant reiterated his original complaints, without going into any details. 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). According to the documents submitted by the Government, by May 2012 the applicant received from the debtor, in several instalments, the full amount recognized by the Commercial Court’s decisions. Having regard to the importance of the applicant’s failure to disclose this information for the proper determination of the present case, 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 application as an abuse of the right of petition, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 30 July 2015.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President