CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3592/17 Boban ZUVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 19 December 2016 communicated on 20 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was an officer in the army of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro who was dismissed from his position in 2004, while posted in Montenegro and while Montenegro was still a part of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. The dismissal was based on allegations related to a separate criminal case which had been brought against him. The applicant subsequently sought reinstatement through disciplinary and judicial avenues in Serbia, Montenegro having declared its independence in 2006, but the Serbian authorities, following several remittals, refused to rule on the merits of his claim, stating that he should instead have sought redress in Montenegro. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court only found a violation of the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time, with respect to the length of the disciplinary proceedings, and awarded him 900 euros in just satisfaction. In the meantime, the criminal case which had been brought against the applicant had itself been concluded without his conviction. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the refusal of the Serbian judicial authorities to rule on his request for reinstatement despite the fact that he is a Serbian national and a Serbian resident and that the army of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has since 2006 been transformed into two separate entities, the army of Serbia and the army of Montenegro respectively. The applicant furthermore complains about the length of the disciplinary proceedings in question.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 21 April 2016, which was served on the applicant on 27 June 2016, can the applicant still be considered a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention regarding the length of the disciplinary proceedings in question raised under Article 6 § 1 thereof?   2.     Has the applicant been denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right to a court” in the determination of his civil rights and obligations (see, for example, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91 and 92, ECHR 2001 ‑ V; see also, mutatis mutandis , R.S. v. Germany (dec.), no. 19600/15, § 34 in fine , 28 March 2017)?   3.     Was the length of the disciplinary proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement contained in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?