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
DRUGO ODJELJENJE
PREDMET PILETIĆ protiv CRNE GORE
(Predstavka br. 53044/13)
PRESUDA
STRAZBUR
5. mart 2020. godine
Ova presuda je pravosnažna ali može biti predmet redakcijske izmjene.
U predmetu Piletić protiv Crne Gore, Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Drugo odjeljenje), na zasijedanju Komiteta u sastavu:
Arnfinn Bårdsen, predsjednik,
Ivana Jelić,
Darian Pavli, sudije,
i Liv Tigerstedt, vršilac dužnosti zamjenika registrara Odjeljenja,
Nakon vijećanja na sjednici bez prisustva javnosti, održanoj 13. februara 2020. godine, donosi sljedeću presudu koja je usvojena tog dana:
POSTUPAK
ČINJENICE
PRAVO
I. LOCUS STANDI KĆERKI PODNOSITELJKE PREDSTAVKE DA UČESTVUJU U POSTUPKU
II. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANA 6 STAV 1 KONVENCIJE
“Prilikom odlučivanja o njegovim građanskim pravima i obavezama...svako ima pravo na ... raspravu u razumnom roku pred ... sudom ...”
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 ćе, ako je to potrebno, pružiti pravično zadovoljenje oštećenoj strani. ”
IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD JEDNOGLASNO,
5. Odbija ostatak zahtjeva podnositeljke predstavke za pravičnim zadovoljenjem.
Sačinjeno na engleskom jeziku, u pisanoj formi, 5. marta 2020. godine u skladu sa Pravilom 77 stavovi 2 i 3 Poslovnika Suda.
Liv Tigerstedt Arnfinn Bårdsen
vršilac dužnosti zamjenika registrara predsjednik
PRILOG
U predstavci su navedene žalbe u smislu člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije (prekomjerna dužina trajanja građanskog postupka)
|
Broj predstavke Datum podnošenja predstavke |
Ime i prezime podnositeljke 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 |
Ukupan iznos dodijeljen na ime nematerijalne štete zajedno nasljednicama podnositeljke predstavke (u eurima)[1] |
Iznos dodijeljen na ime troškova i izdataka po predstavci (u eurima)2 |
|
53044/13 12. jul 2013. godine |
Draga Piletić rođena: 4. januar 1928. godine preminula: 2. decembar 2015. godine Postupak nastavile nasljednice: Nina Đikanović, 4. decembar 1959. godine Jelka Tomašević, 2. jun 1954. godine |
Ana Đukanović Podgorica |
3. mart 2004. godine
|
18. oktobar 2011. godine
|
7 godina, 7 mjeseci i 15 dana
3 nivoa nadležnosti
|
Vrhovni sud Crne Gore Rev.U.br. 18. oktobar 2011. godine |
1.200,00 |
500,00 |
1. Uvećano za bilo koje poreze koji se mogu naplatiti.
2. Uvećano za bilo koje poreze koji se mogu naplatiti.
________________________________________
http://cref.eakademija.com/images/presude/655-PILETIC-PROTIV-CRNE-GORE.pdf
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PILETIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 53044/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 March 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Piletić 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:
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 12 July 2013.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Đukanović, a lawyer practising in Podgorica.
3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
6. The Court notes that the applicant died on 22 December 2015, after having lodged her application, while the case was pending before the Court. In a letter of 25 May 2016 the applicant’s daughters, Ms Nina Đikanović and Ms Jelka Tomašević, who are her legal heirs, expressed their intention to pursue the application.
7. The Court considers that the applicant’s daughters have a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have the case heard within a reasonable time (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 1 and 39, ECHR 1999‑VI, and Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006).
8. Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Nina Đikanović and Ms Jelka Tomašević have standing to continue the present proceedings.
9. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She 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 ...”
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
14. 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.”
15. 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’s claim for just satisfaction.
16. 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 jointly to the applicant’s heirs, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5.Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s 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
baza unakrsnih veza