CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 57223/22 Velimir JANKOVIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   March 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Branko Lubarda,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7   December 2022, 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 Ms B. Vukosavljević, a lawyer practising in Čačak. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given against socially/State-owned companies were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to inform the Court that the final domestic decision in his favour had actually been fully enforced. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The applicant did not dispute those facts. 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; Nikolić and   Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 48162/18 and 8 others, 21   January 2021; and Džanković and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos.   27025/20   and 47 others, 25 August 2022) . Turning to the present case, the Court notes that on 13 July 2022 the sum   awarded in the domestic decision under consideration was fully paid by the   State in accordance with domestic law (see Stevanović and Others v.   Serbia [Committee], nos. 43815/17 and 15 others, § 17, 27 August 2019). The applicant failed to provide that information and no explanation for this omission   was provided. Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the application, 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   client 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 this application constitutes 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, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Anne Louise Bormann   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application 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)     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   57223/22 07/12/2022 Velimir JANKOVIĆ 1960 Commercial Court in Belgrade, 17/06/2016   17/06/2016   13/07/2022