21614/20
WyrokETPCz2024-04-25ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0425JUD002161420
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy brak egzekucji krajowych orzeczeń sądowych wydanych przeciwko spółkom państwowym/społecznym stanowi naruszenie prawa do rzetelnego procesu (art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji) oraz prawa do poszanowania mienia (art. 1 Protokołu nr 1)?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał przypomniał, że wykonanie orzeczenia sądowego jest integralną częścią „rozprawy” w rozumieniu art. 6 Konwencji. Stwierdził również, że decyzje nakazujące podjęcie określonych działań stanowią „mienie” w rozumieniu art. 1 Protokołu nr 1. Trybunał uznał, że władze krajowe nie podjęły wszelkich niezbędnych wysiłków, aby w pełni i w odpowiednim czasie wyegzekwować decyzje na korzyść skarżących, co doprowadziło do naruszenia obu artykułów, pomimo wcześniejszego stwierdzenia naruszenia na poziomie krajowym.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący wnieśli skargę dotyczącą niewykonania krajowych orzeczeń sądowych wydanych na ich korzyść przeciwko spółkom państwowym/społecznym w Czarnogórze. W 2019 roku Sąd Konstytucyjny Czarnogóry stwierdził już naruszenie praw skarżących z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji i art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 z powodu niewykonania tych orzeczeń i przyznał im po 2000 EUR zadośćuczynienia za szkody niemajątkowe. Pomimo tego, krajowe orzeczenia nadal pozostają niewykonane, a okres niewykonania trwa od ponad 13 lat w niektórych przypadkach.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: uznaje skargę za dopuszczalną; stwierdza naruszenie art. 6 § 1 Konwencji i art. 1 Protokołu nr 1 w związku z niewykonaniem krajowych orzeczeń wydanych przeciwko spółkom państwowym/społecznym; orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapewnić, odpowiednimi środkami, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wykonanie zaległych orzeczeń krajowych; orzeka, że państwo pozwane ma zapłacić skarżącym, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, kwotę wskazaną w załączonej tabeli tytułem kosztów i wydatków, powiększoną o odsetki.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ABDOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 21614/20)
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 27 June 2024
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
STRASBOURG
25 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Abdović 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 4 April 2024,
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 April 2020.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr B. Ćupić, 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 18 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 (EUR) each in non-pecuniary damage. However, the domestic decisions under consideration remain unenforced.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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 them a 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,
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies;
Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount 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 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 25 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[1]
21614/20
10/04/2020
(34 applicants)
Hankija ABDOVIĆ Milenka AVRAMOVIĆ Savo JELIĆ Ranko ĐURIŠIĆ Milka MEDIĆ Veselin ASANOVIĆ Sanida LJALJEVIĆ Nikola ĐURIŠIĆ Tomislav DRAGOVIĆ Radmila DRAGOVIĆ Pavle MUGOŠA Tadija BULATOVIĆ
Branka GLOBAREVIĆ Boris PETRIČEVIĆ Danilo NIKOLIĆ Radojica PERIŠIĆ Dragan VUJOVIĆ Aleksandar VIDAKOVIĆ Mirko RADOVIĆ Vesna LJUCOVIĆ Ranko RAŠOVIĆ Olga VUJISIĆ Milka LEKOVIĆ Dijana ALEKSIĆ Blagoje MRVALJEVIĆ Milorad VUKČEVIĆ Marta IVANOVIĆ Milica BOLJEVIĆ Radosav RAIČEVIĆ Šuhreta KRIŠANOVIĆ Čedomir VUJOVIĆ
Household
Dejan RAIČEVIĆ Srđan RAIČEVIĆ Sandra MIJUŠKOVIĆ Ćupić Branislav
Podgorica
High Court Podgorica
(applicants Nikolić, Abdović, Đurišić N., Aleksić, Dragović R., and Asanović),
13/02/2010
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Đurišić R., Vujović D., Vujović Č., Radović, Rašović R., and Ivanović),
17/04/2010
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Raičević S., Raičević D., and Mijušković, and Ljaljević),
29/05/2010
High Court Podgorica
(applicants Bulatović, Vukčević, Leković, Boljević, Dragović T., Perišić, Ivanović),
07/04/2010
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Raičević R., Krišanović and Globarević),
25/06/2010
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Medić),
16/11/2009
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Petričević, Mrvaljević, Vidaković, Mugoša, Vujisić, Avramović, and Jelić), 26/02/2010
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicant Ljucović),
23/03/2011
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Radović, Ivanović, Đurišić R., Vujović D., Vujović Č., Rašović R., Raičević S., Raičević D., and Mijušković),
07/10/2010
Court of First Instance Podgorica (applicants Globarević, Krišanović, Raičević R., and Ljucović),
06/12/2012
Court of First Instance Podgorica (all the applicants),
11/07/2014
Commercial Court
16/10/2017[2]
Commercial Court[3]
28/11/2017
16/03/2010
19/04/2010
02/06/2010
17/06/2010
07/07/2010
17/09/2010
12/10/2010
28/03/2011
21/12/2012
11/12/2013
04/12/2014
16/10/2017
28/11/2017
pending
more than 14 years and 5 days
pending
more than 13 years, 11 months and 2 days
pending
more than 13 years, 9 months and 19 days
pending
more than 13 years, 9 months and 4 days
pending
more than 13 years, 8 months and 14 days
pending
more than 13 years, 6 months sand 4 days
pending
more than 13 years, 5 months and 9 days
pending
more than 12 years, 11 months and 22 days
pending
more than 11 years and 3 months
pending
more than 10 years, 3 months and 10 days
pending
more than 9 years, 3 months and 17 days
pending
more than 6 years, 5 months and 5 days
pending
more than 6 years, 3 months and 21 days
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Rectified on 27 June 2024: added the decisions of the Commercial Court of 16/10/2017
[3] Rectified on 27 June 2024: added the decisions of the Commercial Court of 28/11/2017
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 13.07.2026. · Źródło