FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ADROVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 8318/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
11 April 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Adrović and Others v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2024,
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 24 December 2019. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr D. Prelević, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. 3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicants’ details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies. 6. On 30 May 2019 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of non-enforcement. The applicants were awarded 2,000 euros each in non-pecuniary damage. However, the domestic decisions under consideration remain unenforced until the present day. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 8. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court that they had received payment in the amount of approximately 6% of the main debt before the case was communicated to the Government. They invited the Court to reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 9. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 10. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present case ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 11. In the leading cases of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia (nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, §§ 97-99, 106-16 and 119-20, 15 January 2008), and Mijanović v. Montenegro (no. 19580/06, §§ 81-91, 17 September 2013), 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 these complaints. In particular, as regards the Government’s argument (see paragraph 8 above), the Court notes that the payment in question concerned minor percentage of the applicants’ claims and that, at the time of the communication of the case, the substantial part of their claims remained unenforced. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected. 13. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court rejects the Government’s objection and considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 14.

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