Almir Bilalović
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 21. January 2025. year brought, and 13. February of the same year announced the decision in the case Almir Bilalović v. Serbia, No. 34146/20.
The decision is doneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the alleged violation of the principle of legal security, which is the results of the abolition of the execution decision andde factoThe annulments of the final judgment made in favor of the applicant, because the original order for execution was issued on the basis of a decision-based judgment, which later the Constitutional Court assessed as unconstitutional. The court rejected the petition due to misuse of the right to petition, as the applicant did not submit all relevant information to the Court. |
Circumstances Case
The Basic Court in Novi Pazar is 21. March 2017, adopted his employer to pay his financial amount for the purpose of the annual leave, with the legal defense and the costs of the proceedings and other incomes of the city administrations and elected persons ("Official Gazette of the City Pazara ", No. 14/08) (hereinafter: the decision on fees and other income), which provided the right to the mentioned fees and the way of determining their height. The verdict became the final 9. August 2017 years. The execution decision was made 18. September 2017, and the verdict was fully executed 29. September 2017. years.
In the meantime, 22. June 2017. year, the Constitutional Court made a decision to determine that the provisions of Article 1. Paragraph 2. item. Point. Thatch. 3. and 4. And Art. 11. And 12. Decisions on fees and other income are not in line with the Constitution and the Law. The said decision of the Constitutional Court began producing legal effect 19. August 2017. years, when it was published in the "Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia".
Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Executive Debtor is a complaint against the execution in Novi Pazar 27. February 2018. year, referred to in the provision of Article 60 ("Official Gazette of the RS", No. 109/07, 99/11, 18/13 - decision US, 40/15 - other law and 103/15) prescribed that the execution of final individual acts made on the basis of regulations that can no longer be applied may be applied, while the execution can be suspended.
The applicant is 9. July 2018. submitted a constitutional court constitutional complaint against the solutionOf the Senior Court in Novi PazarFrom 27. February 2018, which is 5. November 2019. rejected as untimely. This constitutional complaint and the outcome of the procedure before the Constitutional Court did not inform the Court.
Since the decision on execution was abolished, the executive borrower, the city of Novi Pazar, filed a proposal for opposition in order to restore a fine that is collected. The Basic Court in Novi Pazar is 24. May 2018 allowed opposition. The applicant complained about this decision, but the senior court in Novi Pazar rejected 11. October 2018. years.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the procedure before the regular court against the Constitutional Court in Novi Pazar from 4. June 2020, because the applicant did not dispute the fulfillment of the legal conditions by the executive borrower and, moreover, its The allegations relate to the execution procedure in which a decision on the abolition of the execution decision was made, which was the basis for initiating the opposition procedure.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted to the applicant 23. July 2020. years.
In the representations, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Paragraph 1. and the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property referred to in Article 1. Protocol no. 1 with the Convention, due to the annulment of the execution order andde facto the annulments of the final judgment made in his favor.
Decision Court
Based on the defense of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, the Court found that the applicant did not inform him about the decision of the Constitutional Court from 5. In November 2019. year by which its first constitutional court in Novi Pazar from 27. February 2018. was rejected as untimely.
The Court took the position that the detained information related to the essence of the petition, and that the applicant's treatment was contrary to the purpose of the right to submit an individual application.
Therefore, the Court of the Applicant rejected the applicant due to misuse of the right to a single petition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 §. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.