Background
Ivan Vuković, born in 1979, filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 January 2025, challenging the excessive length of constitutional proceedings in Montenegro. The domestic proceedings began on 24 January 2018 and concluded on 10 July 2025, spanning 7 years, 5 months, and 17 days across a single level of jurisdiction. The applicant was represented by S. Žarić, a lawyer practicing in Podgorica.
Vuković complained that the duration of the constitutional proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The Montenegrin Government objected that the application constituted an abuse of the right of petition, arguing that the applicant had failed to inform the Court that the proceedings had concluded. The European Court had previously found similar violations in comparable cases: Stakić v. Montenegro (2012) and Siništaj v. Montenegro (2021).
The Court’s Holding
The European Court, sitting as a Committee, unanimously held that Montenegro violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court applied its established framework for assessing the reasonableness of proceeding length: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant. After examining all materials, the Court found no fact or argument capable of justifying the overall duration of over seven years.
The Court rejected Montenegro’s abuse-of-process objection, finding the application properly submitted and the Government’s argument without merit. Drawing on established precedent, the Court concluded the proceedings were excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Montenegro was ordered to pay Vuković €2,400 for non-pecuniary damage and €250 for costs and expenses, with interest accruing at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus 3 percentage points if payment was not made within three months.
Key Takeaways
- Proceedings lasting over 7 years in a single jurisdiction constitute excessive delay in violation of Article 6 § 1.
- States cannot justify extended proceedings by asserting complexity without supporting facts; the burden is on the respondent state to demonstrate the delay was reasonable.
- Montenegro faces a pattern of violations in constitutional proceedings, as evidenced by Stakić, Siništaj, and now Vuković—signaling a systemic problem requiring reform.
- Completion of proceedings after an ECHR application is filed does not bar review or preclude compensation for the delay experienced.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces the European Court’s commitment to enforcing timely access to justice and exposes the urgent need for systemic reform in Montenegro’s Constitutional Court. The pattern of three consecutive violations in constitutional proceedings—Stakić (2012), Siništaj (2021), and now Vuković (2026)—indicates structural inefficiencies that threaten the rule of law and fair trial guarantees. Montenegro faces mounting pressure to implement procedural reforms to prevent further violations and liability.
For attorneys and litigants across the Council of Europe, the decision clarifies that excessive delays—even in single-jurisdiction cases—violate fundamental rights and expose states to damages. The ruling affirms that timely justice is not merely aspirational but enforceable, and that applicants need not wait for final resolution to seek compensation; the delay itself, measured from commencement to conclusion, is the actionable harm. This reinforces that procedural protections require not only formal guarantees but also actual expeditious resolution.