FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF CENTROPROM HOLDING AD BEOGRAD
v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 30796/10)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 February 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Centroprom Holding AD Beograd v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Lətif Hüseynov, President,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,
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 10 May 2010. 2. The applicant company was represented by Ms V. Čejović, a lawyer practising in Bar. 3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant company complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. It also raised other complaints under the Convention. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant company complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. It 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 ...”
7. 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). 8. 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. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. 10. Having regard to the facts of the case, submissions by the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised in the case, and sees no need to examine the applicant company’s remaining complaint under Article 13 of the Convention because it is closely linked to the complaint under Article 6 § 1 and is based on the same facts (see S.C. Britanic World S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 8602/09, § 50, 26 April 2016; Magomedov and Others v. Russia, nos. 33636/09 and 9 others, § 103, 28 March 2017; Mutsayeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 1667/11, § 29, 11 May 2021; and, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12.

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