FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ŽIVKOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Applications nos. 19333/23 and 7 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 May 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Živković and Others v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Raffaele Sabato, President,
 Artūrs Kučs,
 Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Montenegro lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of constitutional proceedings. THE LAW        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8. In the leading cases of Živaljević v. Montenegro, no. 17229/04, §§ 72-78, 8 March 2011 and Siništaj v. Montenegro [Committee], no. 31529/15, § 32, 23 September 2021, 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Notably, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection that the present applications are an abuse of the right of application because the media statements to which the Government referred were of a general nature (concerning friendly settlements reached in general in this type of cases) and, moreover, had been given by a person who is neither one of the applicants nor their representative in the present case (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 66, 15 September 2009, in which the Court held that the direct responsibility of the applicant in the disclosure must always be established with sufficient certainty and that a mere suspicion would not suffice; contrast with Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 44743/08, § 37, 21 January 2020). 10. 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. 11. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Živaljević, cited above, §§ 72-78, and Siništaj, also cited above, § 37), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 6: violation