CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 25 avril 2024

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF ABDOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 21614/20)           JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 27 June 2024 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     STRASBOURG 25 April 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Abdović and Others v. Montenegro, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Montenegro lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 April 2020. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr B. Ćupić, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. 3.     The Montenegrin Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies. 6 .     On 18 July 2019 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of non-enforcement. The applicants were awarded 2,000 euros (EUR) each in non-pecuniary damage. However, the domestic decisions under consideration remain unenforced. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 7.     The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. 8.     The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.   Greece , no.   18357/91, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II). 9.     The Court further notes that the decisions in the present case ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. 10.     In the leading cases of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia (nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, §§ 97-99, 106-16 and 119-20, 15 January 2008), and Mijanović v. Montenegro (no. 19580/06, §§ 81-91, 17 September 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and its own case ‑ law (see, in particular, R. Kačapor and Others , cited above, §§ 123-26; Stošić v. Serbia , no. 64931/10, §§ 66-68, 1 October 2013; and Mastilović and Others v. Montenegro , no. 28754/10, § 52, 24 February 2022) the Court considers it reasonable not to award the applicants compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage because it has already been awarded domestically (see paragraph 6 above), but to award them a sum for costs and expenses indicated in the appended table. 14.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the domestic decisions which remain enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of 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; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   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   Representative’s name and location Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period   End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [1] 21614/20 10/04/2020 (34 applicants) Hankija ABDOVIĆ 1947 Milenka AVRAMOVIĆ 1949 Savo JELIĆ 1946 Ranko ĐURIŠIĆ 1958 Milka MEDIĆ 1953 Veselin ASANOVIĆ 1956 Sanida LJALJEVIĆ 1973 Nikola ĐURIŠIĆ 1939 Tomislav DRAGOVIĆ 1943 Radmila DRAGOVIĆ 1941 Pavle MUGOŠA 1941 Tadija BULATOVIĆ 1940   Branka GLOBAREVIĆ 1951 Boris PETRIČEVIĆ 1955 Danilo NIKOLIĆ 1946 Radojica PERIŠIĆ 1952 Dragan VUJOVIĆ 1965 Aleksandar VIDAKOVIĆ 1977 Mirko RADOVIĆ 1950 Vesna LJUCOVIĆ 1956 Ranko RAŠOVIĆ 1963 Olga VUJISIĆ 1937 Milka LEKOVIĆ 1948 Dijana ALEKSIĆ 1976 Blagoje MRVALJEVIĆ 1938 Milorad VUKČEVIĆ 1949 Marta IVANOVIĆ 1950 Milica BOLJEVIĆ 1954 Radosav RAIČEVIĆ 1953 Šuhreta KRIŠANOVIĆ 1948 Čedomir VUJOVIĆ 1949   Household Dejan RAIČEVIĆ 1967 Srđan RAIČEVIĆ 1969 Sandra MIJUŠKOVIĆ 1972 Ćupić Branislav Podgorica High Court Podgorica (applicants Nikolić, Abdović, Đurišić N., Aleksić, Dragović R., and Asanović), 13/02/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Đurišić R., Vujović D., Vujović Č., Radović, Rašović R., and Ivanović), 17/04/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Raičević S., Raičević D., and Mijušković, and Ljaljević), 29/05/2010   High Court Podgorica (applicants Bulatović, Vukčević, Leković, Boljević, Dragović T., Perišić, Ivanović), 07/04/2010 Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Raičević R., Krišanović and Globarević), 25/06/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Medić), 16/11/2009     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Petričević, Mrvaljević, Vidaković, Mugoša, Vujisić, Avramović, and Jelić), 26/02/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Ljucović), 23/03/2011   Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Radović, Ivanović, Đurišić R., Vujović D., Vujović Č., Rašović R., Raičević S., Raičević D., and Mijušković), 07/10/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Globarević, Krišanović, Raičević R., and Ljucović), 06/12/2012   Court of First Instance Podgorica (all the applicants), 11/07/2014   Commercial Court 16/10/2017 [2]   Commercial Court [3] 28/11/2017 16/03/2010             19/04/2010             02/06/2010           17/06/2010         07/07/2010           17/09/2010         12/10/2010             28/03/2011         21/12/2012             11/12/2013           04/12/2014       16/10/2017     28/11/2017 pending more than 14 years and 5 days           pending more than 13 years, 11 months and 2 days           pending more than 13 years, 9 months and 19 days         pending more than 13 years, 9 months and 4 days       pending more than 13 years, 8 months and 14 days         pending more than 13 years, 6 months sand 4 days       pending more than 13 years, 5 months and 9 days           pending more than 12 years, 11 months and 22 days     pending more than 11 years and 3 months             pending more than 10 years, 3 months and 10 days         pending more than 9 years, 3 months and 17 days     pending more than 6 years, 5 months and 5 days   pending more than 6 years, 3 months and 21 days 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Rectified on 27 June 2024: added the decisions of the Commercial Court of 16/10/2017 [3] Rectified on 27 June 2024: added the decisions of the Commercial Court of 28/11/2017