CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s6E8303AC { width:184.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF GLUŠICA AND ĐUROVIĆ v. MONTENEGRO (Application no. 34882/12)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 March 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Glušica and Đurović v. Montenegro, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2020, 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 4   May   2012. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr M. Vojinović, a lawyer practising in Nikšić. 3.     The Montenegrin Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article   6   §   1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.     The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.     In the leading case of Stakić v. Montenegro, no. 49320/07, §§ 45-51, 2   October 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Stakić , cited above, § 65), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. 13.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that it discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on that amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 March 2020, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Arnfinn Bårdsen Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Montenegro (3 March 2004) End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Relevant domestic decision Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 34882/12 04/05/2012   (6 applicants) Vesna GLUŠICA 14/04/1961 Ivan GLUŠICA 04/11/1987 Bojana GLUŠICA 01/08/1989 Svetlana GLUŠICA 24/05/1986 Milorad GLUŠICA 18/01/1953 Veselinka ĐUROVIĆ 12/05/1955 Vojinović Milan Nikšić 03/03/2004   22/12/2011   7 years, 9 months and 19 days     3 levels of jurisdiction   Supreme Court of Montenegro Rev.no. 1049/11 22/12/2011 2,100     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.