European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF STOJANOVIĆ v. SERBIA

(Application no. 55191/22)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 November 2023

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

In the case of Stojanović v. Serbia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Anne Louise Bormann, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 17 November 2022.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms A. Luković, a lawyer practising in Belgrade.

3.  The Serbian 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 non-enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. THE LOCUS standi of the applicant's spouse

6.  The applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant had died on 22 November 2022 and that his spouse, Mrs Slavica Stojanović, wished to pursue the application as his heir. The Government did not object to the locus standi of the applicant's spouse.

7.   Having regard to its well-established case-law in this respect (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016, with further references), the Court accepts that Mrs Stojanović has standing to pursue the application on behalf of the late Mr Velibor Stojanović.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

8.  The applicant complained principally of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 
1.

9.  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).

10.  The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 
1.

11.  In the leading case of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008, 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 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 decision in the applicant's favour.

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 
1.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14.  The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Milovanović v. Serbia, no. 56065/10, §§ 88-90, 8 October 2019.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, R. Kačapor and Others, cited above, and Stanković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41285/19, 19 December 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

16.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgment which remains enforceable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that Mrs Stojanović may pursue the application on behalf of the late Velibor Stojanović;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. 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 a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table;
6. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant's heir, Mrs Slavica Stojanović, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

2 Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.

3 Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.