CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA94D939 { width:115.74%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF815CF3A { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2C3A894F { width:31.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6835B238 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC590A1FB { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7E0D939 { width:8.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9F1194E5 { width:31.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB145D406 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30ADBAC4 { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 22 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30985/24 Nada RADUNOVIĆ and Others against Montenegro lodged on 17 October 2024 communicated on 3 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the Supreme Court to examine the merits of the applicants’ appeal on points of law. The three applicants instituted civil proceedings, specifying in their claim the value of the dispute in question ( vrijednost spora ) in the amount of 46,000   euros (EUR). The first-instance and second-instance courts’ decisions indicated that the value of the dispute was EUR 31,586.33. The Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law as inadmissible, finding that the value of the contested part of the final judgment individually for each applicant did not exceed the minimum statutory requirement of EUR 20,000. The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine the merits of their appeal on points of law, that is a lack of access to court and a lack of an effective domestic remedy. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the decision of the Supreme Court of 26 May 2023 to declare the applicants’ appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris ( zbog vrijednosti predmeta spora ) in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the specified value of the dispute in the claim and the lower courts’ determination of it, given the provisions of section 37 of the Civil Procedure Act, have the applicants suffered a violation of their right of access to a court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the Supreme Court apply excessive formalism in the application of restrictions (see, mutatis mutandis , Garzičić v. Montenegro , no. 17931/07, §   33, 21   September 2010; Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 32299/08, § 50, 2 October 2012; and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-124, 5 April 2018)?       APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Nada RADUNOVIĆ 1964 Montenegrin Nikšić 2. Boris RADUNOVIĆ 1993 Montenegrin Nikšić 3. Radoje RADUNOVIĆ 1994 Montenegrin Nikšić