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
Preuzmite presudu u pdf formatu
EVROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA
DRUGO ODJELJENJE
PRESUDA RASPOPOVIĆ I DRUGI protiv CRNE GORE
(Predstavka br. 58942/11 i 2 druge - vidjeti priložen spisak)
PRESUDA
STRAZBUR
26. mart 2020. godine
Ova presuda je pravosnažna ali može biti predmet redakcijske izmjene.
U predmetu Raspopović i Drugi protiv Crne Gore, Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Drugo odjeljenje), na zasijedanju Komiteta u sastavu od:
Arnfinn Bårdsen, predsjednik,
Ivana Jelić,
Darian Pavli, sudije,
i Liv Tigerstedt, vršilac dužnosti zamjenika registrara Odjeljenja,
Nakon vijećanja na sjednici bez prisustva javnosti, održanoj 5. marta 2020. godine, donosi sljedeću presudu koja je usvojena tog dana:
POSTUPAK
ČINJENICE
PRAVO
I SPAJANJE PREDSTAVKI
II NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANA 6 STAV 1 KONVENCIJE
Član 6 stav 1
“Prilikom odlučivanja o njegovim građanskim pravima i obavezama...svako ima pravo na ... raspravu u razumnom roku pred ... sudom ...”
III PRIMJENA ČLANA 41 KONVENCIJE
IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD JEDNOGLASNO,
Sačinjeno na engleskom jeziku, u pisanoj formi, 26. marta 2020. godine na osnovu Pravila 77 stavovi 2 i 3 Poslovnika Suda.
Liv Tigerstedt Arnfinn Bårdsen
vršilac dužnosti zamjenika registrara predsjednik
PRILOG
Spisak predstavki u kojima su navedene žalbe u smislu člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije (prekomjerna dužina trajanja građanskog postupka)
|
Br. |
Broj predstavke Datum podnošenja predstavke |
Ime i prezime podnosioca predstavke Datum rođenja |
Ime i prezime zastupnika i prebivalište |
Datum kada je postupak započet ili datum stupanja na snagu Konvencije u odnosu na Crnu Goru (3. mart 2004. godine) |
Datum kada je postupak okončan |
Ukupna dužina trajanja postupka Nivoi nadležnosti |
Relevantna domaća odluka |
Iznos dodijeljen na ime nematerijalne štete po podnosiocu predstavke (u eurima)[1] |
Iznos dodijeljen na ime troškova i izdataka po predstavci (u eurima)[2] |
|
1. |
58942/11 3. avgust 2011. godine |
Aleksandar RASPOPOVIĆ, 11. decembar 1949. godine |
Lompar Svetlana Podgorica |
3. mart 2004. godine
|
9. jun 2011. godine
|
7 godina, 3 mjeseca i 6 dana 3 nivoa nadležnosti |
Vrhovni sud Crne Gore Rev.br.569/11 9. jun 2011. godine |
900,00 |
500,00 |
|
2 |
14361/13 8. oktobar 2012.godine (troje podnosilaca predstavke) |
Stanka BULATOVIĆ, 26. januar 1944. godine Mijodrag ĐUKIĆ, 1. novembar 1969. godine Philip ĐUKIĆ, 20. januar 1971. godine |
Mitrić Blagota Podgorica |
3. mart 2004. godine |
9. maj 2012. godine
|
8 godina, 2 mjeseca i 6 dana 3 nivoa nadležnosti |
Vrhovni sud Crne Gore Rev.br.366/12 9. maj 2012. godine |
1.200,00 |
100,00 |
|
3 |
71006/13 11. oktobar 2013.godine |
Milodarka GARDAŠEVIĆ, 14. januar 1959. godine |
|
3. mart 2004. godine |
23. oktobar 2012. godine
|
8 godina, 7 mjeseci i 21 dan 3 nivoa nadležnosti |
Vrhovni sud Crne Gore Rev.br. 79/12 23. oktobar 2012. godine |
1.00,00 |
100,00 |
[1] Uvećano za bilo koje poreze koji se mogu naplatiti.
[2] Uvećano za bilo koje poreze koji se mogu naplatiti.
____________________________________________
Prevod presude preuzet sa https://sudovi.me/vrhs/sadrzaj/NQN9
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF RASPOPOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 58942/11 and 2 others -see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 March 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Raspopović and Others 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 5 March 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in applications against Montenegro lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
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 these complaints. 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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 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 sums 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,
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table 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 those amounts 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 26 March 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Arnfinn Bårdsen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
baza unakrsnih veza