Marjanović and 6 others. against Serbia

European Court of Human Rights(hereinafter: Court) made a decision on February 1, and published a decision on the case on February 22, 2024Marjanović and 6 others. against Serbia.

The decision was made by a three-member Court Committee.

The applicants are the complainants in the petitionsli to the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), as well as to the violation of the right to property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, due tonon-execution of domestic decisions adopted against social/state enterprises.

Due to the similarity of the subjects of the petitions, the Court combined the petitions.

The government made claims that domestic legally binding decisions, the non-execution of which the applicants complained about in their petitions, were executed in their favor before the Court submitted the cases to it.

The applicants did not dispute that fact.

After examining the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the state fully paid the amounts awarded at the domestic level.

Bearing in mind that the applicants are not the Courtin delivered informationin that legally binding domestic decisions were made before the Government received notification of the submission of petitions, which represents the very essence of the petitions, the Court found that such behavior of the petitioners contradicts the purpose of the right to an individual petition.

The court also indicated thatlawyers must understand that, taking into account the Court's duty to investigate allegations of human rights violations, they must also show high professional caution and meaningful cooperation in working with the Court, saving it from unfounded complaints. Therefore, lawyers, before commencing proceedings and afterwards, must inquire thoroughly into all the details of the case, scrupulously complying with all relevant rules of procedure, while also having a duty to encourage their clients to do the same. Otherwise, intentional or negligent misuse of the Court's resources, can threaten the credibility of the lawyer's work in the eyes of the Court, and even if it happens systematically, it can lead to a situation where certain lawyers are prohibited from representing the applicants.

Consequently, the Court made a decision to declare the petitionsinadmissible due to abuse of the right to an individual petition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.