FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF JOVAŠEVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 41809/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 February 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jovašević and Others 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 14 May 2014. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr D. Milošević, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. 3. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of administrative proceedings. THE LAW
DEATH OF SOME APPLICANTS
6. The applicants’ representative informed the Court that four applicants (see the appended table for further details) had died during the proceedings before it. The representative, however, failed to submit authority forms signed by their heirs. 7. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that none of the deceased applicants’ heirs have expressed a wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 8. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list in respect of the four applicants whose dates of death are mentioned in the appended table. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They 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 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). 11. In the leading case of Živaljević v. Montenegro, no. 17229/04, §§ 72-78, 8 March 2011, 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 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. 13. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.

Outcome for Article 6: violation