European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MARKOVIĆ v. MONTENEGRO

(Application no. 6978/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 March 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Marković 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:

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 13 July 2012.

2.  The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  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 ...”

6.  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).

7.  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.

8.  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.

9.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

10.  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.”

11.  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.

12.  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,

1.      Declares the application admissible;

2.      Holds that it discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

3.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;

4.   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

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)