THIRD SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF BOROVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
 
(Applications nos. 58559/12 and 3 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
11 April 2017
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Borović and Others v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Luis López Guerra, President,
 Dmitry Dedov,
 Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in four applications (nos. 58559/12, 9162/15, 14772/15 and 14883/15) against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The applicants are all Serbian nationals and their personal details are set out in the appendix to this judgment. 2. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Ms V. Rodić, who was recently replaced by their current Agent, Ms N. Plavšić. 3. On 1 September 2015 the applications were communicated to the Government. 4. The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. The Court rejects this objection after giving it due consideration. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants complained about the excessive length of various criminal and civil proceedings (see the appendix to this judgment). 6. All the applicants obtained decisions by the Constitutional Court that found a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded them various sums of money in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see appendix). THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the length of the criminal and civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. The applicant, Mr  Željko Đorđević (application no. 14883/15) raised the same complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
9. The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged violation within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. 10. The Court considers that the Government’s objection is closely linked to the substance of the applicants’ complaint and would therefore more appropriately be examine at the merits stage. 11. The Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. They are also not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
12. In the Government’s opinion, the finding of a violation by the Constitutional Court and the awarding of compensation for non-pecuniary damage constituted sufficient redress for the breach of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time. 13. The applicants disagreed. 14. The Court notes that an applicant’s status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention depends on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the alleged infringement of the Convention and have, if necessary, provided appropriate redress. It is only when those conditions have been satisfied that the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention precludes examination of an application (see Vidaković v. Serbia (dec.) no. 16231/07, § 26, 24 May 2011; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006‑V; and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004). 15. In that connection, the Court notes that the Constitutional Court found that the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time had indeed been violated (see paragraph 6 above), thereby acknowledging the breach complained of and, in effect, satisfying the first condition laid down in the Court’s case-law. 16. The applicants’ victim status then depends on whether the redress afforded was adequate and sufficient, having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004). 17. The Court observes that in length-of-proceedings cases one of the characteristics of sufficient redress which may remove a litigant’s victim status relates to the amount awarded. That amount depends, in particular, on the characteristics and effectiveness of the remedy. Thus, States which, like Serbia, have opted for a remedy designed both to expedite proceedings and afford compensation are free to award amounts which – while being lower than those awarded by the Court – are still not unreasonable (see Cocchiarella, cited above, §§ 96, 97). 18. In the present cases, the Constitutional Court, in addition to finding a violation, declared that the applicants were entitled to various amounts in non-pecuniary damages (specified in the appendix). 19. Turning to the actual sums awarded to the applicants, the Court notes that the compensation granted in the present case was significantly lower than that awarded for similar delays in the Court’s case-law. Whether the amount awarded may be regarded as reasonable, however, falls to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. They include not only the duration of the proceedings in the specific case, but also the value of the award viewed in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned, and the fact that under national systems compensation will in general be awarded and paid more promptly than if the matter fell to be decided by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention. 20. In view of the material in the case files and having regard to the particular circumstances of the proceedings in question, the Court considers that the sums awarded to the applicants cannot be considered as sufficient and do not therefore amount to appropriate redress for the violations suffered. 21. The Court thus concludes that the applicants did not lose their status as victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be rejected. 22. In view of the above, and in particular its finding regarding the victim status of the applicants, the Court concludes that the length of the proceedings at issue was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 23. 24. After reaching such a conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary to examine essentially the same complaint invoked by the applicant, Mr Željko Đorđević (application no. 14883/15) under Article 13 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis, Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, § 90, 20 April 2010). III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
25. In applications nos. 9162/15 and 14772/15, the applicants, Mr Ferenc Dimović and Mr Slobodan Ristić, separately raised complaints about the length of the subsequent proceedings before the Constitutional Court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court notes that the length of those proceedings was approximately three and a half years and two years and eight months respectively. The Court has already held that a set of proceedings before a Constitutional Court after an individual constitutional complaint which were of a similar length to the impugned proceedings in this case did not fall short of the reasonable time requirement. There was thus, for example, no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in constitutional proceedings which lasted approximately three and a half years (see Posedel-Jelinović v. Croatia, no. 35915/02, § 26, 24 November 2005). 26. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the applicants’ complaints regarding the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 6: violation