CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 août 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s3A87C8A8 { width:152.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41404/16 Radica MAKSIĆ against Serbia and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   August 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Dmitry Dedov, President,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici, 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 observations submitted by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the excessive length of the impugned proceedings since the applicants failed to properly raise their complaints before the Constitutional Court. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 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 19 September 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Dmitry Dedov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings or date of entry into force the Convention in respect of Serbia (3 March 2004) End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction     41404/16 30/06/2016 Radica Maksić 06/09/1952 Macura-Avramović Dušanka Belgrade 20/01/2006   28/05/2015   9 years and 4 months and 9 days 2 levels of jurisdiction       69284/16 16/11/2016 Dobrica Mihailović 02/12/1951 Mihailović Vesna Belgrade 11/12/2008   04/07/2013   4 years and 6 months and 24 days 2 levels of jurisdiction       7135/17 09/01/2017 Mirjana Janković 18/04/1952 Besarić Jovan Belgrade 03/03/2004   20/05/2015   11 years and 2 months and 18 days 2 levels of jurisdiction       24979/17 22/03/2017 Stanka Simonović 07/05/1956 Basarić Predrag Pančevo 09/12/2005   24/12/2013   8 years and 16 days 2 levels of jurisdiction       26621/17 23/03/2017 Slobodan Cvetić 19/11/1960 -   03/03/2004   15/12/2014   10 years and 9 months and 13 days 2 levels of jurisdiction