THIRD SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF KOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
 
(Applications nos. 39611/08 and 2 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
4 April 2017
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ković and Others v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Luis López Guerra, President,
 Dmitry Dedov, 
 Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in three applications (nos. 39611/08, 50121/13 and 2490/14) against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Serbian nationals, Mr Nikola Ković, Mr Zoran Ranković and Mr Ivan Bojanić (“the applicants”), on 21 July 2008, 5 June 2013 and 16 December 2013 respectively. The applicants’ personal details are set out in the appendix to this judgment. 2. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Ms V. Rodić, being more recently substituted by their current Agent, Ms. N. Plavšić. 3. On 18 December 2014 the complaints concerning the length of administrative and civil proceedings were communicated to the Government and the remainders of the applications were declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. were communicated to the Government. 4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of different administrative and civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 6. All applicants obtained decisions of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, which found a violation of their right to a hearing within reasonable time. 7. As regards the applicant Mr Nikola Ković, according to the regulations applicable at that time, the Constitutional Court established his right to seek compensation for non-pecuniary damage before the Commission for Damage Compensation. Mr Ković submitted his request for damages to the Commission on 26 December 2010, but he has not received the response to date. 8. As regards the applicants Mr Zoran Ranković and Mr Ivan Bojanić, the Constitutional Court awarded them certain sums in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered (see appendix to this judgment). THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
9. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
10. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the administrative and civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. Mr Zoran Ranković and Mr Ivan Bojanić raised the same complaint under Article 13. Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
11. The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation (see paragraph 14 below). 12. The Court considers that the Government’s objection is closely linked to the substance of the applicants’ complaint and therefore must be joined to the merits. 13. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
14. The Government submitted that as all the applicants obtained decisions from the Constitutional Court they had therefore lost their victim status. In the Government’ s opinion, the finding of a violation and the awarding of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered constituted sufficient redress for the breach of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As regards Mr Nikola Ković, the Government further submitted that, according to the applicable regulations at that time, he could submit request for non-pecuniary damages to the Commission for Damage Compensation and later initiate civil proceedings if he was not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Commission. 15. The applicants disagreed. 16. The Court notes that an applicant’s status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and have, if necessary, provided appropriate redress. It is only when those conditions have been satisfied that does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention precludes examination of an application (see Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.) no. 16231/07, § 24 May 2011; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006‑V; and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004). 17. In that connection, the Court notes that the Constitutional Court found that the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time had indeed been violated (see paragraph 6 above), thereby acknowledging the breach complained of and, in effect, satisfying the first condition laid down in the Court’s case-law. 18. The applicants’ victim status then depends on whether the redress afforded was adequate and sufficient, having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004). 19. The Court observes that in length-of-proceedings cases one of the characteristics of sufficient redress which may remove a litigant’s victim status relates to the amount awarded. That amount depends, in particular, on the characteristics and effectiveness of the remedy. Thus, States which, like Serbia, have opted for a remedy designed both to expedite proceedings and afford compensation are free to award amounts which – while being lower than those awarded by the Court – are still not unreasonable (see Cocchiarella, cited above, §§ 96, 97). 20. Turning to the present case, as regards Mr Nikola Ković, the Court notes, notwithstanding to the Government’s submission to the contrary, that Mr Ković did submit the request for damages to the Commission, but he has never received response (see paragraph 7 above). In any event, the Court reiterates that as regards Serbia in particular, it had already ruled that a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered as an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all applications introduced as of 7 August 2008 (see Vinčić and Others v. Serbia, nos. 44698/06, and others, § 51, 1 December 2009). Therefore the applicant who lodged his application on 21 July 2008 was not obliged to make use of the constitutional avenue. 21. As regards the other two applicants, Mr Zoran Ranković and Mr Ivan Bojanić, the Constitutional Court declared that they were entitled to various amounts in non-pecuniary damages (specified in the appendix). However, the Court notes that the compensation granted to them was significantly lower than that awarded for similar delays in the Court’s case-law. Whether the amount awarded may be regarded as reasonable, however, falls to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. They include not only the duration of the proceedings in the specific case, but also the value of the award viewed in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned, and the fact that under national systems compensation will in general be awarded and paid more promptly than if the matter fell to be decided by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention. 22. In view of the material in the case files and having regard to the particular circumstances of the proceedings in question, the Court considers that the sums awarded to Mr Zoran Ranković and Mr Ivan Bojanić cannot be considered as sufficient and do not therefore amount to appropriate redress for the violations suffered. 23. The Court thus concludes that none of the applicant did lose their status as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected. 24. In view of the above, and in particular its finding regarding the victim status of the applicants, the Court concludes that the length of the proceedings at issue was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 25. 26. After reaching such a conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary to examine essentially the same complaint raised by Mr Zoran Ranković and Mr Ivan Bojanić under Article 13 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis, Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, § 90, 20 April 2010).

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation