CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } Published on 23 May 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33308/21 SEKAS DOO against Montenegro lodged on 22 June 2021 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s right of access to court. The applicant company instituted civil proceedings against the State seeking compensation for pecuniary damage. On 25 November 2016 the Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant company. This judgment was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court on 7 June 2019 and 9   April 2020 respectively. On 16 September 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected ( odbacuje se ) the applicant company’s constitutional appeal as having been lodged out of time. Notably, the time limit of 60 days for lodging a constitutional appeal had expired on 14   July 2020 (a non-working day due to a national holiday), and the applicant company had lodged it the day after, on 15 July 2020. The applicant company complains under Article 6 of the Convention that it was unlawfully denied access to court. In particular, it claims that pursuant to section 108 of the Civil Proceedings Act, when the last day of a time limit falls on a national holiday, which was the case here, the time limit shifts to the first working day afterwards. Accordingly, it had lodged the constitutional appeal within the prescribed time limit.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the decision of the Constitutional Court of 16 September 2020 to reject the applicant company’s constitutional appeal as submitted out of time in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Dos Santos Calado and   Others v.   Portugal , nos. 55997/14 and 3 others, §§ 111-117, 31 March 2020; see, also, mutatis mutandis , Ferré Gisbert v.   Spain , no. 39590/05, § 34, 13   October 2009; Tripcovici v. Montenegro , no. 80104/13, §§ 45-47, 7   November 2017; and Gros v. Slovenia , no. 45315/18, § 26, 7 July 2020)? In particular, given the provision of section 108 of the Civil Procedure Act, did the applicant company have access to a court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2. The Government are also invited to submit to the Court any other Constitutional Court decision in which the time limit for lodging a constitutional appeal expired on a Sunday or a national holiday and a constitutional appeal was lodged on the first working day afterwards.