CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 février 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 24431/11 Veselin KULJIĆ against Montenegro   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13   February 2020 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 8   April 2011, 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 V. Zečević, a lawyer practising in Budva. The applicant’s complaint 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 respondent Government cannot be held liable for excessive length of civil proceedings. The Court notes that in 2003 the applicant and his former wife separated. Pending the divorce and custody proceedings, their two children were entrusted to the applicant’s former wife and the applicant was granted contact rights. However, in January 2005 the applicant took the children for winter holiday and subsequently refused to return them to their mother. On 5   January 2006 the domestic court granted custody of the children to the applicant’s former wife. That judgment became final on 5 May 2006. In September 2006 the applicant applied to the court for sole custody of the children. The length of these proceedings is the subject of the present case. They lasted six years, six months and 13 days for three levels of jurisdiction. During that period seven decisions were rendered. Moreover, several social services and an expert team of child psychologists were involved in the proceedings. While the impugned custody proceedings were ongoing, several sets of enforcement proceedings, as well as criminal proceedings, were initiated against the applicant in connection with his refusal to comply with the final judgment of 5 January 2006 to return the children to his former wife. On 30   September 2010 the applicant was found guilty of child abduction and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years. Those proceedings were examined by the Court in the case of Mijušković   v.   Montenegro (no. 49337/07, 21 September 2010), brought by the applicant’s former wife. In that case the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention concerning, inter alia , the belated enforcement of the final custody judgment. In view of the above and, notably, considering the applicant’s contribution to the duration of the impugned proceedings, as well as their complexity, the Court finds that the length in the present case cannot be considered excessive. Consequently, the Court finds that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) and   4   of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 March 2020.   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 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 24431/11 08/04/2011 Veselin Kuljić 23/06/1961 Zečević Vojislav Budva 29/09/2006   11/04/2013   6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   Supreme Court of Montenegro Rev.no.356/13 11 April 2013