CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 décembre 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 } .s494F418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 53223/14 Vladimir BUJKOVIĆ against Montenegro (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12   December 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 11   April 2012, 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 J. Mićić, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil 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 application is inadmissible. The Government submitted that the proceedings had been suspended for almost five years at the applicant’s initiative and that the remaining length had therefore not been excessive. The applicant did not dispute that information. The Court notes that the proceedings were initiated on 22 May 2003. On 9 September 2003 the applicant proposed that the proceedings be suspended ( prekid postupka ) until another set of civil proceedings, which he had initiated in 2000 and which concerned a preliminary issue, were concluded. After the resolution of the preliminary issue in June 2008, the impugned proceedings were continued in January 2009 and finished in October 2010, less than two years later. During this time the case was considered by three levels of jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings were not excessive and, consequently, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and   4 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 January 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Arnfinn Bårdsen   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)   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 of the Convention in respect of Montenegro (3 March 2004) End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Relevant domestic decision 53223/14 11/04/2012 Vladimir Bujković 24/02/1972 Mićić Jovan Belgrade 03/03/2004   21/10/2010   6 years, 7 months and 19 days   3 levels of jurisdiction   Supreme Court of Montenegro Rev.no.1198/10 21/10/2010