SECOND SECTION
 
CASE OF SINANOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
(Application no. 45028/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
5 March 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sinanović and Others v. Montenegro,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Ivana Jelić,
 Darian Pavli, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2020,
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 3 May 2013. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms M. Camović, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. 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 civil proceedings. THE LAW
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, 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 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 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11.

Outcome for Article 6: violation