CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 décembre 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 } .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 } .s9E144500 { height:38.6pt } .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 } .sD49C6D70 { height:41.75pt } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s566F5D7A { height:28.95pt } .sC465E8B1 { height:42.3pt } .sC707265A { height:9.65pt } .sB5A0042B { height:7.7pt } .sB70A263B { height:23.6pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34170/19 Srđan KRSTIĆ against Serbia and 11 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 various 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 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 25 March 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 (delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court that the competent court had acknowledged the alleged breach and that the applicants had sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a consequence of it (see the appended table). Moreover, all the applicants had 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 Denić and Stamenković v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 58944/18 and 58948/18, 5   November 2020). Turning to the present case, 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 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 (delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant Year of birth   Relevant domestic decision Enforcement order Final domestic decision concerning the claim that the proceedings had been of excessive length     34170/19 17/06/2019 Srđan KRSTIĆ 1976   Municipal Court in Lebane, 24/06/2004   Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005 11/11/2011   11/11/2011 Commercial Court in Leskovac 07/02/2019     37995/19 08/07/2019 Goran PUJIĆ 1962 Municipal Court in Lebane, 22/02/2006   02/07/2009   Commercial Court in Leskovac 02/11/2018     57176/19 23/10/2019 Suzana SAVIĆ 1973 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   Commercial Court in Leskovac 29/05/2019     57178/19 23/10/2019 Bojan DINIĆ 1967 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   Commercial Court in Leskovac 12/04/2019     17035/20 17/03/2020 Bojan DODIĆ 1974 Municipal Court in Lebane, 24/06/2004   Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005 11/09/2007   11/09/2007 Commercial Court in Leskovac 27/12/2018     17038/20 23/03/2020 Sveta KRSTIĆ 1965 Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   Commercial Court in Leskovac 11/02/2019     17314/20 17/03/2020 Dragoljub MILJKOVIĆ 1963   Municipal Court in Lebane, 21/04/2005   11/09/2007   Commercial Court in Leskovac 07/05/2018     18503/20 30/04/2020 Bojan PAVLOVIĆ 1970 Municipal Court in Lebane, 02/03/2007   Municipal Court in Lebane, 17/11/2008   Municipal Court in Lebane, 03/06/2009   11/09/2007   11/11/2011   11/11/2011   Commercial Court in Leskovac 07/06/2018     23203/20 30/05/2020 Vesna TODOROVIĆ 1960 Commercial Court in Leskovac, 15/01/2004   14/05/2004   Commercial Court in Leskovac 17/07/2018     23204/20 30/05/2020 Dragan BANKOVIĆ 1954 Municipal Court in Lebane, 09/06/2003   Municipal Court in Lebane, 13/07/2005   31/08/2004   16/04/2010 Commercial Court in Leskovac 05/11/2018   23482/20 30/04/2020 Dragica ĐENIĆ 1946 Municipal Court in Lebane, 28/01/2005   15/11/2005   Commercial Court of Appeal in Belgrade 20/07/2018     25567/20 10/06/2020 Dragica IVKOVIĆ 1953 Municipal Court in Lebane, 18/12/2001   14/12/2012   Commercial Court in Leskovac 18/09/2018