Milan ZARIC against Serbia
Presentation of the decisionZarić against Serbia (number 49714/22)
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) isOn August 31, 2023, it made, and on September 21, 2023, announced the decision in the caseZarić against Serbia.
He made the decisionthree-member Board of the Court.
In the petition, the applicant complained about 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 the violation of the right to property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention , due to defaultdomestic decisions adopted against a social enterprise.
Government presented the claim that the domestic decision, the non-execution of which the applicant complained in his petition, was executed in his favor before the Court submitted the petition in question to her. Therefore, the Government proposed that the Court reject the petition due to abuse of the right to an individual petition.
The applicant did not dispute this fact.
After examining the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that is the state fully paid the amounts awarded at the domestic level, in accordance with domestic law.
Bearing in mind that the applicant did not inform the Court that a final domestic decision was made before the Government received notification of his application, which information constitutes the essence of the application, the Court accepted the Government's defense, finding that such behavior of the applicant contradicts the purpose of the right to an individual application .
The Court also noted that lawyers must understand that, taking into account the Court's duty to investigate allegations of human rights violations, they must also demonstrate high professional prudence and meaningful cooperation in working with the Court, saving it from frivolous complaints. Therefore, lawyers must, before and after commencing proceedings, diligently inquire into all the details of the case, carefully observing all relevant rules of procedure, and are also required to encourage their clients to do the same. Otherwise, intentional or negligent abuse of the Court's resources may jeopardize the credibility of the work of the lawyer in the eyes of the Court, and even if it occurs systematically, it may lead to a situation where certain lawyers are prohibited from representing the applicants.
Consequently, the Court made a decision to declare the application inadmissible,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.