#HumanRights #EuropeanCourtOfHumanRights #TheList #SupremeCourt
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has issued a decision in the case Vujisić v. Montenegro and decided to delete the application from the list of cases, considering that, based on the circumstances of the case, it concluded that the matter was settled in accordance with Article 37 paragraph 1 subparagraph (b) of the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms…
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has issued a decision in the case Vujisić v. Montenegro and decided to delete the application from the list of cases, considering that, based on the circumstances of the case, it concluded that the matter was settled in accordance with Article 37 paragraph 1 subparagraph (b) of the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The application was filed for alleged violation of one of the aspects of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention (right to a reasoned judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property). The basis for the initiation of a complaint was a civil dispute between natural persons due to the nullity of the lease contract for the business premises due to the existence of an interim measure.
The applicant is a person born in January 2005 following the death of his father as out-of-wedlock child. As the sole heir of his father, he was finally declared in July 2009 and entered into cadastral books as the owner of his father’s entire property. However, his uncles and a certain company concluded in November 2008 a contract for leasing business premises in a luxury location, owned by his father. The applicant requested to determine the nullity of this contract due to the existence of an interim measure previously designated on the property in question. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, his claim for the nullity of such a contract was dismissed, and the applicant complained to the European Court of Human Rights that the judgment had been arbitrarily contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and that such a judgment had his property rights endangered. In addition to restitution of the business premises concerned, the applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 30,000, as well as compensation of pecuniary damage from the state of Montenegro in the amount of the lease that would have been realised during the duration of the disputed contract, specified at about EUR 460,000.
In addition to the procedure for determining the nullity of the contract in question, the applicant also conducted a second procedure against the company in question in order to recover the immovable property and compensation of damage. During this procedure, the applicant at one time withdrew part of the claim in respect of the compensation of damages against that company. The second proceeding was finally terminated in his favour by the judgment of the Supreme Court and the business premises that were the subject of the disputed lease contract were handed over to the state in November 2017.
Analyzing the circumstances of the case, the European Court found that after the return of the disputed business premises in November 2017, the circumstances the applicant complained of no longer existed. Also, having in mind the fact that the Representative pointed out in her pleadings, that in the second case the applicant withdrew the claim for pecuniary damage, and subsequently claimed it from the State of Montenegro before the European Court, the Court found that the applicant prevented the domestic courts from deciding on his application. For all of the above reasons, it was finally found that the applicant’s appeals were adequately and sufficiently met, which is why it was decided to delete the application from the list of cases because the matter was resolved.
This decision of the European Court is final on the date of adoption and the applicant has no right of appeal.
Source: Government of Montenegro