CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 avril 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 28165/18 Slađana STANIŠIĆ against Serbia and 5 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   April 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 were represented by Mr S. Stajić, a lawyer practising in Lebane. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 19 March 2020. THE LAW The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court that the national authorities had acknowledged the alleged breach and that the applicants had sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered. Moreover, most of the applicants had already been awarded compensation in that connection. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The applicants did not dispute that fact but considered it irrelevant. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Mladenović and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 41375/16 and 2   others, 29   August 2019). Turning to the present cases, the Court notes that the competent domestic court has indeed acknowledged the alleged breach (see the appended table). Most of the applicants have been afforded redress for it and the proceedings in respect of one applicant are pending. The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications was given to the Government and no convincing explanation for this omission was provided. Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10   January 2017). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application (see, for similar approach, Denić and Stamenković v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 58944/18 and 58948/18, 5 November 2020) and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 (a) 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 29 April 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Final domestic decision concerning the claim that the proceedings had been of excessive length Final domestic decision concerning the claim for non-pecuniary damage Amount awarded     28165/18 08/06/2018 Slađana STANIŠIĆ 1964 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/05/2002   02/03/2006   12/03/2018 12 year(s) and 11 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 24/04/2018 Lebane Court of First Instance 19/09/2019 400 euros       43402/18 03/09/2018 Snežana ĐORIĆ 1962 Municipal Court in Lebane, 05/08/2004   Municipal Court in Lebane, 07/09/2005   Municipal Court in Lebane, 04/05/2006   16/04/2010     16/04/2010     16/04/2010     14/08/2018 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)   14/08/2018 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)   14/08/2018 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 20/06/2018 pending     43530/18 04/09/2018 Živorad KOSTIĆ 1954 Municipal Court in Lebane, 08/05/2003   Municipal Court in Lebane, 29/12/2004   Municipal Court in Lebane, 13/02/2006   02/07/2009     02/07/2009     02/07/2009   07/08/2018 9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)   07/08/2018 9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)   07/08/2018 9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 20/03/2018 Lebane Court of First Instance 24/09/2020 450 euros     49801/18 11/10/2018 Petar STAJIĆ 1951 Municipal Court in Lebane, 24/06/2004   Municipal Court in Lebane, 05/08/2008   11/09/2007     11/09/2007   20/08/2018 10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)   20/08/2018 10 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 09/05/2018 Lebane Court of First Instance 24/09/2019 400 euros     58435/18 26/11/2018 Zoran NIKOLIĆ 1965 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   13/09/2018 11 year(s) and 3 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 09/05/2018 Lebane Court of First Instance 19/07/2019 400 euros       58436/18 26/11/2018 Dragi STAMENKOVIĆ 1947 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   13/09/2018 11 year(s) and 3 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 07/06/2018 Lebane Court of First Instance 24/09/2019 400 euros