VUČELJIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
Inadmissible
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani
1. The applicant, Mr Mojsije Vučeljić, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1944 and lives in Podgorica. 3. On 28 March 2005 the applicant and his siblings (“the plaintiffs”) instituted civil proceedings against: (a) the State, as the founder of the public broadcasting service, Radio Televizija Crne Gore (“RTCG”), and (b) G.K., one of RTCG’s employees. They submitted that a television programme transmitted by the RTCG had portrayed their late father in a way which was insulting to both him and his family. 4. On 22 March 2011, after two remittals, the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ruled against the plaintiffs. 5. On 2 April 2012 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica overturned the judgment of the first-instance court and ruled partly in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering the State to pay each of them compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) with accompanying interest. The court dismissed their claim in respect of G.K. and ordered them to pay him the costs of the respective proceedings. On 7 December 2012 the same court issued an additional judgment ordering the State to make the High Court’s judgment of 2 April 2012 public via RTCG and to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the proceedings in connection therewith. 6. On 23 January 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed appeals on points of law that had been lodged by the plaintiffs. 7. On 25 February 2013 the plaintiffs filed an enforcement request (predlog za izvršenje). On 7 April 2014, after two remittals, the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order, followed by an additional order of 27 May 2014. 8. The applicant did not file a request for review while the proceedings (both civil and enforcement) were ongoing or an action for fair redress once they were concluded (see paragraph 22 below). 9. On an unspecified date the plaintiffs lodged a constitutional appeal. On 22 December 2013 the Constitutional Court informed them that the constitutional appeal was incomplete and invited them to amend it within eight days or it would be rejected. On 5 January 2015 the applicant lodged another appeal with the Constitutional Court. On 21 April 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected (odbacuje se) the applicant’s constitutional appeal for not having been amended as requested and because “it [did] not contain the reasons from which it could be concluded why and in what way the applicant’s constitutional rights and freedoms were violated”. 10. Article 32 provides for the right to a fair trial. 11. Article 149 provides that the Constitutional Court will rule on any constitutional appeal lodged in respect of an alleged violation of a human right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, once all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted. 12. The Constitution entered into force on 22 October 2007. 13. Section 48 provided that a constitutional appeal might be lodged against an individual decision of a State body, an administrative body, a local government body or a legal person exercising public authority, in respect of violations of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, once all other effective legal remedies had been exhausted. 14. Sections 49-59 provided additional details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals. In particular, section 56 provided that in cases where the Constitutional Court found a violation of a human right or freedom, it would quash the impugned decision, entirely or partially, and order that the case be re-examined by the same body which had delivered the quashed decision. 15. This Act entered into force in November 2008 and was repealed by the Constitutional Court Act 2015. 16. Section 68 provides that a constitutional appeal can be lodged by a physical person or legal entity, an organisation, a community (naselje), a group of individuals, and other forms of organisation which do not have the status of a legal entity if they consider that one of their human rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution has been violated by an individual decision, action or omission of a State body, an administrative body, a local government body or a legal person exercising public authority, once all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted. 17. Sections 69-78 provide further details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals. 18. In particular, section 69 provides, inter alia, that if the complaint relates to a court’s failure to act within a reasonable time, a constitutional appeal can be lodged only if the remedies provided for by the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time Act have already been exhausted or if an appellant can prove that these remedies were not or would not have been effective. 19. Section 76 provides that if in the course of proceedings before the Constitutional Court, an impugned decision has ceased to be in force, and the Constitutional Court finds a violation of a human right or freedom, it will allow a constitutional appeal and award the appellant just satisfaction. 20. Section 38 provides that the Constitutional Court must deliver a decision within 18 months of the date on which the proceedings before that court were initiated. 21. This Act entered into force on 20 March 2015 and thereby repealed the Constitutional Court Act 2008. 22. This Act makes provision, under certain circumstances, for the possibility to have lengthy proceedings expedited by means of a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev), and for the opportunity for claimants to be awarded compensation by means of an action for fair redress (tužba za pravično zadovoljenje). In particular, section 33 provides, inter alia, that an action for fair redress can be lodged by a party who has previously made use of a request for review or who objectively was not able to do so. The action for fair redress must be filed with the Supreme Court no later than six months after the date of receipt of the final decision delivered in the impugned proceedings. This Act entered into force on 21 December 2007. 23. For the Constitutional Court’s relevant practice see Siništaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10, 7260/10 and 7382/10, §§ 94-98, 24 November 2015.