European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has rendered two decisions in cases Kicović against Montenegro and Vidaković against Montenegro, both dismissing applications as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 1 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, said Montenegro’s representative before this court, Ms Valentina Pavličić.
“In case Vidaković against Montenegro, the applicant initiated the proceedings before the Republic Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance to request exercise of rights on the grounds of his disability. On 30 November, the Fund rejected his request. By means of the final judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Montenegro, on 21 December 2009, Vidaković’s application for extraordinary review of the court decision was rejected. Vidaković lodged an appeal, which was also rejected by the Constitutional Court of Montenegro”, said Ms Pavličić.
The applicant in this case retired in 1990, by means of the decision rendered by the Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance.
“After his pension was reduced in 1991, Vidaković lodged an appeal to the Ministry of Labor. In proceedings that followed, Ministry of Labor and Constitutional Court of Montenegro rendered several decisions regarding his request. By means of the judgment brought on 19 April 2012, Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible. The applicant submitted request for reconsideration of the Constitutional Court’s judgment and it was also rejected on 14 September 2012”, explained Ms Pavličić.
In both cases, applicants stated violations of Article 6 paragraph 1 (right to fair trial) of the Convention owing to excessive lengths of administrative proceedings.
“Cases were communicated to the Office of the Montenegro’s representative before the Court as WECL cases (well-established case-law)”, pointed out Ms Pavličić.
Montenegro’s representative refused to conclude the case with amiable settlement as he thought requirements for admissibility of the application haven’t been met.
“The representative observed that constitutional appeal was not considered an effective remedy until 20 March 2015”, pointed out Ms Pavličić.
“Accepting that in those cases the six-month period started the day Supreme Court rendered its decisions and not the day Constitutional Court rendered its decisions, European Court determined that applications were lodged out of time. Therefore, the Court declared applications inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 paragraph 1 and 4 of the Convention”, concluded Ms Pavličić.
