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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 52771/19 Slavko CVETKOVIĆ against Serbia and 3 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 a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 19 Mаrch 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 had awarded them different amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the appended table). 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 observes that the domestic courts acknowledged the alleged breach and afforded redress for it. 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 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.   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     52771/19 02/10/2019 Slavko CVETKOVIĆ 1954 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   25/07/2019 11 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 15 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 03/06/2019 Leskovac Court of First Instance 02/12/2019 400 euros     52968/19 02/10/2019 Milutin PAVLIČIĆ 1961 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   25/07/2019 11 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 15 day(s)   Commercial Court in Leskovac 29/01/2019 Leskovac Court of First Instance 15/07/2020 500 euros     56923/19 23/10/2019 Vukašin DENIĆ 1952 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   Municipal Court in Lebane, 10/05/2005 11/09/2007       11/11/2011   01/08/2019 11 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s)   01/08/2019 7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 22 day(s) Commercial Court in Leskovac 25/04/2019 Leskovac Court of First Instance 28/02/2020 500 euros       57174/19 20/10/2019 Žarko RISTIĆ 1974 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005 11/09/2007   01/08/2019 11 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s) Commercial Court in Leskovac 15/11/2018 Leskovac Court of First Instance 26/09/2019 400 euros