SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PILETIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 53044/13)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
5 March 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Piletić v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Ivana Jelić,
 Darian Pavli, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Montenegro lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 July 2013. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Đukanović, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. 3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW
THE LOCUS STANDI OF THE applicant’s daughters to purSue the application
6. The Court notes that the applicant died on 22 December 2015, after having lodged her application, while the case was pending before the Court. In a letter of 25 May 2016 the applicant’s daughters, Ms Nina Đikanović and Ms Jelka Tomašević, who are her legal heirs, expressed their intention to pursue the application. 7. The Court considers that the applicant’s daughters have a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of the right guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have the case heard within a reasonable time (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, §§ 1 and 39, ECHR 1999‑VI, and Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006). 8. Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Nina Đikanović and Ms Jelka Tomašević have standing to continue the present proceedings. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
10. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 11. In the leading case of Stakić v. Montenegro, no. 49320/07, §§ 45-51, 2 October 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 13. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.

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