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
PETO ODJELJENJE
PREDMET CENTROPROM HOLDING AD BEOGRAD protiv CRNE GORE
(Predstavka br. 30796/10)
PRESUDA
STRAZBUR
10. februar 2022. godine
Ova presuda je pravosnažna ali može biti predmet redakcijske izmjene.
U predmetu Centroprom Holding AD Beograd protiv Crne Gore, Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Peto odjeljenje), na zasijedanju Odbora u sastavu:
Lətif Hüseynov, predsjednik,
Lado Chanturia,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, sudije,
i Viktoriya Maradudina, v.d. zamjenika registrara Odjeljenja,
Nakon vijećanja na sjednici zatvorenoj za javnost, održanoj 20. januara 2022. godine,
Donosi sljedeću presudu, koja je usvojena tog dana:
POSTUPAK
ČINJENICE
PRAVO
I NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANA 6 STAV 1 KONVENCIJE
Član 6 stav 1
“Svako, tokom odlučivanja o njegovim građanskim pravima i obavezama … ima pravo na … raspravu u razumnom roku pred … sudom…”
II OSTALE NAVODNE POVREDE KONVENCIJE
III PRIMJENA ČLANA 41 KONVENCIJE
„Kada Sud utvrdi prekršaj Konvencije ili Protokola uz nju, a unutrašnje pravo Visoke strane ugovornice u pitanju omogućava samo djelimičnu odštetu, Sud će, ako je to potrebno, pružiti pravično zadovoljenje oštećenoj strani. “
IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD, JEDNOGLASNO
Proglašava pritužbu na osnovu člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije prihvatljivim;
Utvrđuje da je bilo povrede člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije u vezi sa prekomjernom dužinom trajanja građanskog postupka;
Utvrđuje da nije neophodno da ispituje prihvatljivost i osnovanost pritužbe na osnovu člana 13 Konvencije;
Utvrđuje
(a) da tužena država treba da plati kompaniji-podnosiocu predstavke, u roku od tri mjeseca, iznose koji su navedeni u tabeli u prilogu, po stopi primjenjivoj na dan uplate;
(b) da će se od dana isteka gore pomenuta tri mjeseca do dana isplate obračunavati kamata koja je jednaka najnižoj kamatnoj stopi Evropske centralne banke uz dodatak od tri procentna poena;
Sačinjeno na engleskom jeziku i dostavljeno u pisanoj formi, 10. februara 2022. godine, u skladu sa Pravilom 77 stavovi 2 i 3 Poslovnika Suda.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov v.d.
zamjenika registrara predsjednik
PRILOG .
Predstavkom je pokrenuta pritužba na osnovu člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije (prekomjerna dužina trajanja građanskog postupka)
|
Broj predstavke Datum podnošenja |
Naziv kompanije-podnosioca predstavke
|
Početak postupka ili datum stupanja na snagu Konvencije u odnosu na Crnu Goru (3. mart 2004. godine) |
Okončanje postupka |
Ukupna dužina trajanja Nivoi nadležnosti |
Iznos dodijeljen za nematerijalnu štetu po podnosiocu predstavke (u eurima)[1] |
Iznos dodijeljen za troškove i izdatke po predstavci (u eurima)[2] |
|
30796/10 10. maj 2010. godine |
CENTROPROM HOLDING AD BEOGRAD
|
3. mart 2004. godine
|
2. april 2015. godine
|
11 godina i 1 mjesec
3 nivoa nadležnosti
|
3.000 |
500 |
[1] Uvećano za poreze koji se mogu naplatiti podnosiocu predstavke.
[2] Uvećano za poreze koji se mogu naplatiti podnosiocu predstavke
____________________________________________
Prevod presude preuzet sa https://sudovi.me/vrhs/sadrzaj/NQN9
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF CENTROPROM HOLDING AD BEOGRAD
v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 30796/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Centroprom Holding AD Beograd v. Montenegro, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Lado Chanturia,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,
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 10 May 2010.
2. The applicant company was represented by Ms V. Čejović, a lawyer practising in Bar.
3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant company complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. It also raised other complaints under the Convention.
THE LAW
6. The applicant company complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. It 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant 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 justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.
11. Having regard to the facts of the case, submissions by the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised in the case, and sees no need to examine the applicant company’s remaining complaint under Article 13 of the Convention because it is closely linked to the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and is based on the same facts (see S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 8602/09, § 50, 26 April 2016; Magomedov and Others v. Russia, nos. 33636/09 and 9 others, § 103, 28 March 2017; Mutsayeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 1667/11, § 29, 11 May 2021; and, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
12. 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.”
13. 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 applicant company’s claims for just satisfaction.
14. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, 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 the above 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 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
baza unakrsnih veza