CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 avril 2019

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s91ABA0C8 { width:154.45pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20073/17 Nikola TRIFUNOVIĆ against Serbia and 4 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4   April   2019 as a Committee composed of:   Dmitry Dedov, President,   Alena Poláčková,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Ms I. Krunić, a lawyer practising in Čačak. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Court received friendly-settlement declarations under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Serbia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table, less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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 the Protocols thereto 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 May 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Dmitry Dedov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     20073/17 06/03/2017 Nikola Trifunović 10/09/1954 Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings – the length of the civil proceedings preceding the enforcement proceedings lasted for 5 years and 1 month within the Court’s competence ratione temporis at two levels of jurisdiction. 21/02/2019 12/02/2019 2,000     20908/17 06/03/2017 Duško Radulović 07/06/1960 Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings – the length of the civil proceedings preceding the enforcement proceedings lasted for 5 years and 1 month within the Court’s competence ratione temporis at two levels of jurisdiction. 21/02/2019 12/02/2019 2,000     62276/17 18/08/2017 Boban Tanasković 17/08/1956 Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - the length of the civil proceedings preceding the enforcement proceedings lasted for 5 years and 1 month within the Court’s competence ratione temporis at one level of jurisdiction 21/02/2019 12/02/2019 2,000     62659/17 18/08/2017 Radomir Radović 23/11/1957 Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - the length of the civil proceedings preceding the enforcement proceedings lasted for 4 years and 1 month within the Court’s competence ratione temporis at one level of jurisdiction 21/02/2019 12/02/2019 2,000     9483/18 12/02/2018 Milan Milinković 29/03/1952 Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings - the length of the civil proceedings preceding the enforcement proceedings lasted for 4 years and 3 months within the Court’s competence ratione temporis at one level of jurisdiction. 21/02/2019 12/02/2019 2,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.