CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s88AD0518 { width:147.76pt; 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 } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 21551/15 Milovan VIDAKOVIĆ against Montenegro (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   November 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20   April 2015, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr Mirović, a lawyer practising in Bar. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings were communicated to the Montenegrin Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the excessive length of the impugned administrative proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the Government raised a preliminary objection of non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, claiming that the applicant’s complaints were lodged out of time. They therefore invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. The applicant, following the final decision by the Supreme Court of 14   September 2012, lodged a constitutional appeal which was dismissed on 28 October 2014. The Court observes that in the respondent State a   constitutional appeal was not considered an effective remedy in respect of length of proceedings until 20 March 2015 (see, Boucke v. Montenegro , no.   26945/06, §§ 76-79, 21 February 2012; Siništaj and Others v.   Montenegro , nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015; and Vučeljić v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 31, 18 October 2016). It was thus not a remedy which the applicant was required to use (contrast, Vujović   and Lipa D.O.O v. Montenegro , no. 18912/15, § 32, 20 February 2018). Therefore, the six-month period in the present case should be counted from the Supreme Court’s decision of 14 September 2012. Since the current application was lodged on 20 April 2015, the Court allows the Government’s objection and finds that the application was lodged outside the six-month time-limit and therefore must be rejected in accordance with article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 December 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Arnfinn Bårdsen   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of administrative proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Start of proceedings or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Montenegro (3 March 2004) End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Relevant domestic decision 21551/15 20/04/2015 Milovan Vidaković 16/10/1938 03/03/2004   14/09/2012   8 year(s) and 6 month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     Supreme Court Uvp.No. 140/12 14/09/2012