CASE OF NEDIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić
5. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Podgorica. 6. On 6 September 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Commission for Restitution (Komisija za restituciju nepokretnosti) in Berane requesting restitution of the property expropriated from his father in 1969. 7. Following the adoption of a new Restitution Act (Zakon o povraćaju oduzetih imovinskih prava i obeštećenju), on 28 December 2005, the applicant submitted another application to the newly established Commission for Restitution and Compensation in Berane (Komisija za povraćaj oduzetih imovinskih prava i obeštećenja) requesting compensation. 8. In 2008 all the Commissions for Restitution and Compensation were consolidated into three regional Commissions in Bar, Bijelo Polje and Podgorica. Due to the location of the expropriated property, the applicant’s request was assigned to the Commission with its seat in Bijelo Polje (hereinafter “the Commission”). 9. On 19 February 2009 the applicant sought opinion from an independent expert regarding the expropriated property. 10. On 21 July 2009 the Commission also requested an assessment report on the expropriated property. The report was submitted to the Commission on 24 July 2009. 11. Due to Commission’s inactivity, on 4 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal (žalba zbog ćutanja uprave) with the Appeals Commission (Komisija za žalbe u postupku za povraćaj imovinskog prava ili obeštećenja). 12. On 23 October 2009 and 5 December 2013 the applicant filed complaints with the Ministry of Finance and the Administrative Court, respectively, about the Appeals Commission’s inactivity. 13. On 24 December 2013 the Appeals Commission ordered the Commission to decide on the applicant’s request within a period of 30 days. 14. On 13 October 2014 the Commission ruled against the applicant. 15. On 23 December 2014 the Appeals Commission upheld that decision on appeal. 16. The applicant filed and action with the Administrative Court seeking redress. 17. On 17 April 2015 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2015. 18. On 23 June 2015 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. On 24 July 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected his appeal for failure to make proper use of other available domestic remedies. According to the Constitutional Court, the applicant should first have made use of an additional request for the judicial review of his case (zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke).