Notice on the judgment and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that were published in April 2024 against the Republic of Serbia
European Court for human rights (hereinafter: Court) is in the period from 1 to 30published 1 verdict and 7 decisions in April 2024 against the Republic of Serbia.
Judgment in the caseBosnian brought by the Board. A violation of the rights referred to in Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) was established.
All seven decisions were made by the Board. In six decisions, the court removed petitions from its list of cases, and that, because disputed legal matter resolved at the domestic level (Borislava Poštić), because the applicants did not respond to the observations of the Government (Ljubiša Popović and others. and Zlatan Lazić and others.) and because because they are accepted signed friendly settlements (MiljanaJovanovic,Danica Milosevic and others.,Zorka Petrović and 29 others. Ljubinka Stanisavljev and 96 others), while in one decision the application was declared inadmissible due to abuse of the right to submit an individual application (Velimir Janković).
And - JUDGMENT
- Bosnian against Serbia (number 37630/19, datedApril 30, 2024. years)
The case refers to the applicant's complaint that his right to access the court was violated in the context of misdemeanor proceedings related to a traffic violation.
The applicant complained that the domestic courts rejected the request for judicial review of his case, because he did not hand over the signed misdemeanor warrant issued by the police.
- Circumstances of the case
To the applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), Mr. Aleksandar Boškoćević, In June 2018, the police officers of the Police Administration of Rum handed over a misdemeanor order containing a fine of 5,000 dinars, due to illegal parking of a motor vehicle.
On that occasion, the applicant did not sign the misdemeanor order in the space provided for it.
In June 2018, the applicant submitted a request for a court decision, which he signed and also attached an unsigned misdemeanor order.
The Misdemeanor Court in Ruma rejected this request of the applicant, bearing in mind that in accordance with the provisions of Article 174 of the Law on Misdemeanors, the misdemeanor order was not signed, which was confirmed by the Misdemeanor Appellate Court upon the applicant's appeal.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the misdemeanor proceedings, the applicant submitted a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court, which was rejected in April 2019. The Constitutional Court assessed that the applicant did not suffer significant damage due to the amount of the imposed sentence.
- Complaints of the applicant and proceedings before the Court
The applicant complained on the basis of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention that he was denied the right to access the court, given that his request for a judicial decision on his case was rejected/rejected by the domestic courts only on the basis that he did not sign the misdemeanor order.
The petition was submitted to the Court on June 25, 2019.
- Decision of the Court
In the first place, the court examined the Government's objections that in this particular case there was an abuse of the right to an individual petition due to an incorrect presentation of the case law of the Misdemeanor Appellate Court, which the applicant attached to the petition. The Court determined that the mentioned case occurred in the context of domestic proceedings, and not within the framework of communication with the Court, and assessed that this did not constitute abuse.
The Government also stated that the applicant did not suffer any significant damage and that for the same reason the application should be declared inadmissible, but the Court assessed that, regardless of the financial impact of the fine imposed on the applicant, the Government's objection cannot be accepted because the issue of access to the court in criminal cases things, by their nature, of particular importance in terms of the proper functioning and fairness of the criminal justice system of the given country. Hence, there is a question of general interest that cannot be considered trivial, or, accordingly, something that does not merit an examination of the merits.
The court continued the examination regarding the merits and determined that the actions of the domestic courts represented excessive formalism in terms of limiting the applicant's right to access the court.
The court stated that by simultaneously submitting two documents to the relevant national judicial authority, i.e. of the unsigned misdemeanor order and the signed separate request for judicial review, the applicant unequivocally expressed his intention to challenge the sentence imposed by the police and requested its review before the court, and that the additional review of the separate one-page request cannot be considered an unjustified burden for the domestic court.
Also, the Court specifically noted that iThe Constitutional Court subsequently changed its practice in similar cases, acknowledging that the previous practice represented excessive formalism in limiting access to the court in terms of the right to a fair trial (see the decision in the case of Poštić v. Serbia, no.
Bearing in mind all of the above, the Court found that the manner in which the domestic courts applied the relevant procedural rules in this case cannot be considered proportionate to the goal that those rules sought to achieve, and determined that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 Conventions.
- Just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court awarded the applicant the amount of 2,000 euros in the name of non-material damage, 1,800 euros in the name of costs and expenses, while the request for compensation for material damage in the amount of 42 euros was rejected.
II DECISIONS
- Borislava Poštic against Serbia (No. 44173/16 of April 4, 2024, published on April 25, 2024)
The case refers to the applicant's complaint that she failed to realize the right to family disability benefits after the death of her husband, which occurred during the hostilities in the Republic of Croatia, even though the domestic authorities in other almost identical cases accepted the requests of disabled war veterans and family members of the deceased.
The applicant highlighted the violation of rights from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsrights and fundamental freedoms (hereinafter referred to as: the Convention) due to the existence of uneven practices of domestic authorities in the exercise of the rights prescribed by the previously valid Law on the Basic Rights of Soldiers, Military Disabled Persons and Families of Fallen Soldiers ("Official Gazette of the FRY", No. 24/98, 29 /98, 25/00 - decision of the "Official Gazette of RS", No. 101/05 - Dr. Law and 50/18).
The government stated that on November 24, 2022, the Constitutional Court issued a conclusion by which it invalidated its decision Už-5143/2014 of December 14, 2015 on the rejection of the applicant's constitutional appeal, because it determined that it had accepted constitutional appeals in cases in in which the applicants were in an identical factual and legal situation as the applicant. Also, the Government pointed out that the Constitutional Court made a decision on the same day, November 24, 2022Už-5143/2014 by which he accepted the applicant's constitutional complaint, determined that her right to a fair trial from Article 32, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia was violated, and annulled the judgment of the Administrative Court U. 17228/13 of May 20, 2014.
The Court accepted the Government's defense that the Constitutional Court resolved the disputed legal matter in favor of the applicant, and assessed that the respect for human rights defined in the Convention and the Protocols to the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination of the application according to Article 37, paragraph 1, point b) of the Convention, and the application is removed from his list of subjects.
- Ljubiša Popović and others. and Zlatan Lazić and others. against Serbia(No. 7792/17 and 36588/17, dated March 21, 2024, published on April 11, 2024)
In their petitions, the applicants complained about the violation of their rights from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention due to inconsistent judicial practice regarding compensation for damages due to less paid wages based on shift work.
The Government submitted its observations to the Court with a proposal to reject the petitions due to non-exhaustion, i.e. improper exhaustion of the domestic effective legal remedy - constitutional appeal, as well as due to obvious unfoundedness.
Given that the applicants did not submit their response to the Government's observations within the deadline, nor did they request a postponement, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention, decided to remove the petitions from its list of cases.
3) Velimir Jankovic against Serbia (No. 57223/22 of March 21, 2024, published on April 11, 2024)
In the petition, the applicant referred to the violation of rights from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, due to non-execution of a domestic decision made against a social/state enterprise.
The government made the claim that the applicant had fully paid his claim from the disputed decisions and proposed that the Courtdismiss the application in question due to abuse of the right to an individual application.
Bearing in mind that the applicant did not inform the court about the said fact, which represents the very essence of the petition, the Court accepted the Government's defense and found that such behavior of the applicant contradicts the purpose of the right to an individual petition.
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 diligently inquire into all the details of the case, carefully following all relevant rules of procedure, and encourage their clients to do the same, both before and after the commencement of proceedings. 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 application, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.
4), 5), 6), 7) Miljana Jovanovic against Serbia (Number 32029/21 of March 21, 2024, published on 11 April 2024), Danica Milosevic and others. against Serbia (number 29930/23from March 21, 2024, published on the 11 April 2024)ZorkaPetrović and 29 others. against Serbia (No. 55324/22 of March 21, 2024, published on 11 April 2024) iLjubinka Stanisavljev and 96 others. against Serbia (No. 55360/22 of March 21, 2024, published on 11 Aprilin 2024)
In the mentioned cases, the court accepted the concluded friendly settlements and decidedto delete the applications from its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. All cases relate to non-enforcement of domestic decisions taken against social/state enterprises and complaints regarding Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention.