CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mars 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 } .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 } .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 } .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. 15346/15 CRKVA SVETOG ĐORĐA against Montenegro (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   March 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 19   July 2005, 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. Džomić, a lawyer from Kraljevo. 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. In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings in question were terminated on 14 March 2007 when the Supreme Court rendered its decision. They therefore lasted three years and eleven days within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (Montenegro ratified the Convention on 3   March 2004). The Court further notes that the case involved complex factual and legal issues, in particular, issues concerning the nationalisation of property which took place in 1959 and 1965 in the former Yugoslavia. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the length of the proceedings 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 9 April 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   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 15346/15   19/07/2005   CRKVA SVETOG ĐORĐA   Džomić Velibor   Kraljevo 03/03/2004   14/03/2007   3 years and 11 days   1 level of jurisdiction