36225/11
WyrokETPCz2020-01-16ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0116JUD003622511
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy przewlekłość postępowania cywilnego naruszyła prawo do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał, odwołując się do swojego ugruntowanego orzecznictwa, w tym do kryteriów oceny rozsądnego terminu (złożoność sprawy, postępowanie skarżącego i władz, stawka sporu), oraz do wiodącej sprawy Stakić v. Montenegro, stwierdził, że długość postępowania cywilnego była nadmierna. Nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku, co doprowadziło do uznania naruszenia art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Miljan Despotović, złożył skargę dotyczącą przewlekłości postępowania cywilnego w Czarnogórze. Postępowanie to trwało 6 lat, 3 miesiące i 28 dni, obejmując trzy instancje sądowe, a zakończyło się decyzją Sądu Najwyższego Czarnogóry z dnia 1 lipca 2010 r.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Uznaje skargę za dopuszczalną.
- Stwierdza, że niniejsza skarga ujawnia naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji w związku z przewlekłością postępowania cywilnego.
- Nie zasądza żadnej kwoty z tytułu słusznego zadośćuczynienia, ponieważ skarżący nie zgłosił żadnych roszczeń.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DESPOTOVIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 36225/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Despotović 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 12 December 2019,
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 3 March 2011.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr S.Đ. Popović, 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
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He 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 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 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. The applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Arnfinn Bårdsen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Montenegro (3 March 2004)
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Relevant domestic decision
36225/11
03/03/2011
Miljan Despotović
19/09/1979
Sava Đ. Popović
Podgorica
03/03/2004
01/07/2010
6 years, 3 months and 28 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Montenegro
Rev.no. 945/10
01/07/2010
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 13.07.2026. · Źródło