CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 36395/24 Radoman ĆAĆIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 28 November 2024 communicated on 10 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged failure of domestic bodies, including the Constitutional Court, to deal with the applicant’s explicit complaint under Article 8, as well as the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The applicant, a police officer, was fined in disciplinary proceedings for having been seen outside of his working time in the company of a “person of interest”. The applicant appealed, maintaining that the person in question was his childhood friend, and that the disciplinary sanction was in violation of his Article 8 rights. The Administrative Court dismissed his appeal, which decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. On 17 July 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The applicant complains under Article   6 of the Convention: (a) that none of the domestic bodies, including the Constitutional Court, dealt with his explicit Article 8 complaint, and (b) about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which lasted for more than three years and ten months.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts deal with the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, did the courts’ judgments adequately state the reasons on which they were based in that regard (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017, and Meli v.   Albania , nos. 41373/21 and 48801/21, § 74, 16 July 2024)?   2.   Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Šikić v. Croatia , no. 9143/08, §§ 36-38, 15 July 2010)?