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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 BOŽOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 42403/20)             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 Božović 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 18 August 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 the 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. Montenegr o , 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] 42403/20 18/08/2020 (17 applicants) Milutin BOŽOVIĆ 1956 Vjera VUJAČIĆ 1955 Ljubomir LJUCOVIĆ 1960 Dejan FEJZOVSKI 1966 Dragan KUKULIČIĆ 1976 Miodrag MARKOVIĆ 1957 Mitar MIŠOVIĆ 1952                       Household Dragan KRIVAĆEVIĆ 1984 Darko KRIVAĆEVIĆ 1971 Irena VLADIĆ 1975 Igor KRIVAĆEVIĆ 1972 Nadežda KRIVAĆEVIĆ 1949     :Household Marija PEJOVIĆ 1972 Momčilo PEJOVIĆ 1967     Household Mileva ĐURIŠIĆ 1946 Nebojša ĐURIŠIĆ 1969 Dejan ĐURIŠIĆ 1972   Ćupić Branislav Podgorica Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Vujačić), 22/06/2007     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Ljucović), 19/06/2008     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Krivaćević and Kukuličić), 03/07/2009     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Marković), 22/01/2009     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Pejović), 15/07/2009   High Court Podgorica (applicants Đurišić and Mišović), 13/02/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Božović), 16/11/2009     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Fejzovski), 26/02/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Ljucović, Marković, Krivaćević, Kukuličić, and Pejović), 07/10/2010     Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Vujačić), 06/12/2012   Commercial Court 16/10/2017 [2]   Commercial Court [3] 28/11/2017 11/07/2007         30/06/2008         25/09/2009           09/10/2009         22/12/2009       16/03/2010         17/06/2010         12/10/2010         21/12/2012           11/12/2013       16/10/2017     28/11/2017 pending more than 16 years, 8 months and 10 days       pending more than 15 years, 8 months and 21 days       pending more than 14 years, 5 months and 25 days         pending more than 14 years, 12 months and 12 days       pending more than 14 years, 2 months and 28 days     pending more than 14 years and 5 days       pending more than 13 years, 9 months and 4 days       pending more than 13 years, 5 months and 9 days       pending more than 11 years and 3 months         pending more than 10 years, 3 months and 10 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