CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s720C9CB0 { width:126.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3C15D7A { height:21.85pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 26271/20 Miladija BELIĆ against Serbia and 19 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   December 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Pauliine Koskelo, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Ms B. Župić, a lawyer practising in Novi Pazar. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 20 May 2021. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) The Government submitted that the final domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour had actually been enforced. 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. 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 Nikolić and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 48162/18 and 8 others, 21   January 2021). Turning to the present case, the Court observes that between 2 July 2020 and 18 February 2021 the sums awarded in the domestic decisions at issue were paid by the State in accordance with domestic law (see Stevanović and Others v. Serbia , nos. 43815/17 and 15 others, § 17, 27   August 2019). The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications was given to the Government and no 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 these 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 13 January 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Pauliine Koskelo   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 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 or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia (3 March 2004) Date of enforcement of domestic decisions     26271/20 22/06/2020 Miladija BELIĆ 1961 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       26273/20 22/06/2020 Šuhra ŠEHOVIĆ 1960 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       26280/20 22/06/2020 Mersija SALKOVIĆ 1970 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       31976/20 24/06/2017 Nezrina MADŽOVIĆ 1966 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       32142/20 24/06/2020 Mehdija KAČAPOR 1960 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       32149/20 24/06/2020 Vasvija PRTINAC 1964 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       32153/20 24/06/2020 Sebiha HAMIDOVIĆ 1961 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       32242/20 24/06/2020 Magbula KLADNIČANIN 1957 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020       32247/20 24/06/2020 Rifat KLADNIČANIN 1953 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     32258/20 24/06/2020 Esada GUSINJAC 1964 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     32274/20 24/06/2020 Hata ZEĆIROVIĆ 1965 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     32291/20 24/06/2020 Raza ZEĆIROVIĆ 1963 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     32334/20 24/06/2020 Alija ZEKOVIĆ 1955 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     17617/21 24/06/2020 Pajaz MAVRIĆ 1957 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     17626/21 24/06/2020 Muamera KOLAŠINAC 1962 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   18/02/2021     17633/21 24/06/2020 Belkisa ŽUPIĆ 1967 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   18/02/2021     17634/21 24/06/2020 Fahrija ELJESKOVIĆ 1959 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     17643/21 24/06/2020 Emina MEHMETI 1958 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     17645/21 24/06/2020 Safija DUPLJAK 1948 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020     17648/21 24/06/2020 Zineta JAHIĆ 1968 Commercial Court in Kraljevo, 27/11/2003 03/03/2004   02/07/2020