THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 32812/10 Živojin TODOROVIĆ against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 21 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta , President, Dragoljub Popović , Iulia Antoanella Motoc , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Živojin Todorović , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Kragujevac .

The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a former employee of “ Društveno preduzeće I ndustrija mesa ‘ Crvena zvezda ’ ” Kragujevac (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comp rised of socially-owned capital.

On 15 October 2002 the Commercial Court ( Trgovinski sud ) in Kragujevac opened insolvency proceeding s in respect of the debtor (St. 1079/02).

The applicant duly submitted his claims for the payment of due salary arrears and related employment benefits.

On 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 the Commercial Court accepted some of the applicant ’ s claims. Those decisions became final on an unspecified date.

On 20 February 2009 the Commercial Court t erminated the insolvency proceedings. That decision was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 27 March 2009 (no . 21/09) and became final on 16 July 2009.

On 26 February 2010 the debtor ceased to exist.

The final court decisions rendered in the applicant ’ s favour remain only partly enforced to the present day .

B. Relevant domestic law

The domestic law concerning the status of socially/State-owned companies and insolvency proceedings is outlined in the cases of Marčić and Others v. Serbia , no. 17556/05, § 29, 30 October 2007 ; R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia , nos. 2269/06 et al., §§ 68-76 , 15 Janu ary 2008 ; Adamović v. Serbia , no. 41703/06, §§ 17 ‑ 21, 2 October 2012; and Sokolov and Others v. Serbia ( dec. ), nos. 30859/10, § 20, 14 January 2014.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the inability to enforce his claims, payments having been ordered by the Commercial Court ’ s final decisions of 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 .

THE LAW

The relevant provisions of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligation s ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

Although the respondent Government did not raise any objection as to the applicant ’ s observance of the six-month rule provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, this issue calls for the Court ’ s consideration proprio motu .

The Court has held that, in the context of the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions against insolvent socially-owned companies, the applicants should lodge their applications, at the latest, within six months as of the date when the decision on the termination of the insolvency proceedings had become final (see Sokolov and Others , cited above, § 34). In the present case, the Court notes that the decision terminating the insolvency proceedings against the debt or became final on 16 July 2009. As the applicant lodged his application on 1 June 2010 , the Court considers that he had not acted diligently .

It follows that the application w as introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance wit h Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Å ikuta              Deputy Registrar President