Notice of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights published in December 2023 against the Republic of Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is in the period from 1 to 31DecemberIn 2023, he published six decisions against the Republic of Serbia. 

All six decisions were made by a three-member Board.

The court accepted friendly settlements in four cases, in one case it adopted the unilateral Declaration submitted by the Government, and in one case it declared the application inadmissible.

Cases in which amicable settlements were concluded and a unilateral Declaration was submitted represent well-established practice of the Court (so-calledWECL – well-established case-law), and settlements were concluded and a unilateral Declaration was submitted in order to reduce the total costs before the Court and consequently less payments from budget funds.

Three cases in which they were concludedfriendly settlements refer tonon-execution of domestic decisions taken against social/state enterprises. It's about objectsFILIP DOO and EUROMODUL DOO,Kochis and 4 others.andCajić and 3 others. All the mentioned cases follow the practice of the Court from the judgmentLilić et al. against Serbia(No. 16857/19 and 43001/19, dated January 14, 2021) according to which the duration of bankruptcy proceedings against social or state enterprises over one year is excessive.

One case in which an amicable settlement was concluded (Hil Ivić and 24 others.) and one case in which the Government submittedunilateral declaration (Sekularac against Serbia)refer to proceedings before the Constitutional Court within a reasonable period of time in constitutional appeal proceedings that lasted from 3 years 7 months and 14 days to 9 years 5 months and 25 days.

In the subjectPetraković and Gulić The court declared the petition inadmissible, because it assessed that the petitioners' complaints that their right from Article 6, para. 1. and 3. (d) of the Convention, because they did not have the opportunity to examine certain witnesses in the criminal proceedings that were conducted against them for the criminal offense of giving false testimony,obviously unfounded.

Namely, the applicants were originally defense witnesses in the criminal proceedings against Z.J. for the murder of Zoran Đinđić. They testified during the trial that Z.J. on March 11, 2003, he was not in Belgrade, but in Kula. However, the domestic courts established in the evidentiary proceedings that Z.J. stayed in Belgrade 10,11. and on March 12, 2003, and that he committed the criminal offense for which he was accused, for which he was legally sentenced to a prison sentence of 40 years.

The applicants were then charged with the criminal offense of giving a false statement in the criminal proceedings against Z.J. The applicants demanded that Z.J., persons who were heard in the proceedings against Z.J., be heard as witnesses. and other persons.

The first-instance court rejected their proposal, relying on the final verdict against Z.J, and found them guilty and sentenced them to prison terms. The first-instance verdict was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Belgrade.

The court found that the applicants did not give sufficient reasons why these witnesses should have been heard in the proceedings against them, while the domestic courts, for their part, gave sufficient reasons why they did not do so. In this regard, the Court especially noted that the applicants' statements about where Z.J. found the day before the assassination already established as untrue in the adversarial criminal proceedings against Z.J., which in turn led to the criminal prosecution of the applicants themselves. In this situation, the first-instance court in the proceedings against the applicants was bound by the facts established in the final judgment against Z.J. The court added that the truthfulness of the testimony of the relevant witnesses had already been established in the adversarial proceedings against Z.J. and that therefore their repeated examination in the proceedings against the petitioners would not be beneficial to the proper administration of justice. Finally, the Court pointed out that the applicants, with the help of a lawyer, were able to present their version of the events before the domestic courts as a whole, and to challenge the evidence that was suggestedprosecution.