THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 63694/10 Dragić ŽIVKOVIĆ against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta , President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc , Branko Lubarda , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2010 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dragić Živković , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Leskovac . He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Marjanović , a lawyer practising in Leskovac .

The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić .

On 17 April 2003 the Leskovac Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company DP “LVI Leteks” (hereinafter “the debtor ”), to pay the applicant a specified amount on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions. By 16 August 2003 this judgment became both final and enforceable.

On 25 J anuary 201 1 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.

The applicant never filed a request for the enforcement of the said final judgment with the competent court. He also failed to report his claims in the insolvency proceedings against the debtor.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in his favour. These complaint s fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 .

THE LAW

The Government a sked the Court to declare the application inadmissible for failu re to exhaust domestic remedies , since the applica nt had never filed an enforcement request in respect of the final judgment in question and, also, had not reported his claims in the insolvency proceedings.

In response, the applicant maintained that the Serbian authorities remained responsible for the non-enforcement of the decision rendered in his favour .

The Court observes that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, among other authorities , Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).

The Court has consistently held that when an applicant obtains a final judgment against a socially-owned company, he or she is only required to file a request for the enforcement of that judgment with the competent court or, in case of liquidation or insolvency proceedings against the debtor, to report his or her claims to the administration of the debtor (see Lolić v. Serbia , no. 44095/06 , § 26, 22 October 2013 and Nikolić-Krstić v. Serbia , no. 54195/07 , § 29 , 14 October 2014 ).

There is no reason to depart from that jurisprudence in the present case .

As the applicant failed to file a request for the enforcement of the above mentioned decision to the competent court or to report his claims in the insolvency proceedings against the debtor, the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 July 2015 .

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar President