THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 16240/23 and 19610/23
Violetka IVANOVA against Serbia
and Marina VASILEV against Serbia

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 February 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) on 13 June 2024.

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

2. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against a socially/State-owned company)

The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court that they had acquired shares in the debtor company in 2021, pursuant to a rehabilitation plan (unapred pripremljeni plan reorganizacije) adopted by the company, accepted by the majority of its creditors and approved by the competent domestic court. They added that the nominal value of the shares acquired by the applicants corresponded to the amount of their claims towards the company. The domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour had thereby been enforced. The Government therefore suggested that the Court reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The applicants did not dispute that fact, but they considered it irrelevant. In their opinion, the decisions under consideration should have been enforced in cash and not in shares. The applicants also claimed that they had not been aware of the rehabilitation plan when lodging the applications with the Court.

The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Nikolić and Others v. Serbia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 48162/18 and 8 others, 21 January 2021).

Turning to the present case, the Court observes that on 3 March 2021 the competent court approved the rehabilitation plan providing for conversion of all monetary claims against the debtor company into shares. On 21 October 2021 the applicants were issued shares in the debtor company pursuant to that plan. The Court considers that the applicants should have informed it about that fact even though they would have preferred to be paid in cash. The Court rejects the applicants’ argument that they had only learned of the existence of the plan from the Government’s observations. In accordance with domestic law, the plan had been widely publicised and the applicants, like any other creditors, had been given access to it. In any event, the applicants, who are legally represented, should have verified the status of their case and whether there had been any relevant developments before lodging an application with the Court (see, by analogy, Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 28, 10 January 2017)

Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević, cited above, § 29).

In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 March 2025.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)