Analiza slučaja pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava
Evropska Konvencija o ljudskim pravima
Praktični vodič za primenu Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima
Priručnici i vodiči kroz praksu Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Evropski sud za ljudska prava u 50 pitanja
Glosar Evropske Konvencije o ljudskim pravima
Nacionalna mreža sudija i tužilaca za primenu standarda Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Preuzmite presudu u pdf formatu
EVROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA
PRVO ODJELJENJE
PREDMET DEDIĆ I DRUGI protiv CRNE GORE
(Predstavka br. 4847/20)
PRESUDA
STRAZBUR
11. april 2024. godine
Ova presuda je pravosnažna ali može biti predmet redakcijske izmjene.
U predmetu Dedić i drugi protiv Crne Gore,
Evropski sud za ljudska prava (prvo Odjeljenje), na zasijedanju Odbora u sastavu:
Péter Paczolay, predsjednik,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, sudije,
i Viktoriya Maradudina, postupajući u svojstvu zamjenika registrara Odjeljenja,
Nakon vijećanja na sjednici zatvorenoj za javnost 21. marta 2024. godine, Donosi sljedeću presudu, koja je usvojena toga dana:
POSTUPAK
ČINJENICE
PRAVO
I. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANA 6 STAV 1 KONVENCIJE I ČLANA 1 PROTOKOLA BR. 1
II. PRIMJENA ČLANA 41 KONVENCIJE
IZ OVIH RAZLOGA, SUD, JEDNOGLASNO,
(a) da je tužena država dužna da plati podnosiocima predstavke zajedno, u roku od tri mjeseca, iznos naveden u priloženoj tabeli koji će biti konvertovan u valutu tužene države po stopi primjenjivoj na dan isplate;
(b) da se od isteka navedena tri mjeseca do isplate ovih iznosa obračunava kamata na gore navedeni iznos po stopi koja je jednaka najnižoj kamatnoj stopi Evropske centralne banke tokom zateznog perioda uz dodatak od tri procentna poena.
Sačinjeno na engleskom jeziku i objavljeno u pisanoj formi 11. aprila 2024. godine na osnovu Pravila 77 stavovi 2 i 3 Poslovnika Suda.
| Viktoriya Maradudina | Péter Paczolay |
| postupajući u svojstvu zamjenika registrara | predsjednik |
PRILOG
Predstavka u kojoj su iznijete pritužbe na osnovu člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije i člana 1 Protokola br. 1 (neizvršenje ili odloženo izvršenje domaćih odluka donijetih protiv preduzeća u društvenom/državnom vlasništvu)
|
Predstavka br. Datum podnošenja |
Ime podnosioca predstavke Godina rođenja |
Ime i adresa zastupnika |
Relevantna domaća odluka |
Datum početka perioda neizvršenja |
Datum okončanja perioda neizvršenja Dužina trajanja postupka izvršenja |
Iznos dodijeljem za troškove i izdatke po predstavci (u eurima)[1] |
|
4847/20 30. decembar 2019. godine (4 podnosioca predstavke) |
Radojica DEDIĆ 1952 Veselinka ASANOVIĆ 1965 Darka DOBRAŠINOVIĆ 1952 Olga PEJOVIĆ 1953 |
Prelević Dragan Podgorica |
Osnovni sud u Podgorici (svi podnosioci predstavke) 16. februar 2006. godine Viši sud u Podgorici (svi podnosioci predstavke) 13. maj 2010. godine Privredni sud Crne Gore (svi podnosioci predstavke) 16. oktobar 2017. godine |
17. April 2006. godine 12. jun 2011. godine 28. novembar 2017. godine |
u toku više od 17 godina i 10 mjeseci u toku više od 12 godina, 8 mjeseci i 5 dana u toku više od 6 godina, 2 mjeseca i 20 dana |
250,00 |
[1] Uvećan za bilo koje poreze koji se mogu naplatiti podnosiocima predstavke.
________________________
Prevod presude Zastupnika Crne Gore pred ESLJP preuzet sa hudoc.echr.coe.int
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF DEDIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 4847/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dedić and Others v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
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 30 December 2019.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr D. Prelević, a lawyer practising in Podgorica.
3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies.
6. On 25 July 2019 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of non-enforcement. The applicants were awarded 2,000 euros each in non-pecuniary damage. However, the domestic decisions under consideration in this case remain unenforced until the present day.
THE LAW
7. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
9. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present case ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
10. In the leading cases of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia (nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, §§ 97-99, 106-16 and 119-20, 15 January 2008), and Mijanović v. Montenegro (no. 19580/06, §§ 81-91, 17 September 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and its own case-law (see, in particular, R. Kačapor and Others, cited above, §§ 123-26; Stošić v. Serbia, no. 64931/10, §§ 66-68, 1 October 2013; and Mastilović and Others v. Montenegro, no. 28754/10, § 52, 24 February 2022), the Court considers it reasonable not to award the applicants compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage because it has already been awarded domestically (see paragraph 6 above), but to award the sum for costs and expenses indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the domestic decisions which remain enforceable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
baza unakrsnih veza