MILOŠEVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Doc ref: 8615/10, 8642/10, 8690/10, 8692/10, 8695/10, 11458/10, 11465/10, 11474/10, 14693/10, 17271/10, 19815... • ECHR ID: 001-145463
Document date: June 10, 2014
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 8615/10 Dušanka MILOŠEVIĆ against Serbia and 11 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 10 June 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 applications lodged between 28 January and 8 June 2010 ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are all Serbian nationals, and their further personal details are set out in the Annex .
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their successive Agents, Mr S. Carić and Ms V. Rodić.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicants were former employees 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 proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 1079/02).
The applicants duly submitted their claims for the payment of due salary arrears and related employment benefits.
On the dates specified in the Annex, the Commercial Court accepted some of the applicants ’ claims. As regards the remainder of their claims, it instructed them to initiate a regular civil suit. None of the applicants did so. These court decisions became final on an unspecified date.
On 20 February 2009 the Commercial Court t erminated the insolvency proceedings. This 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 applicants ’ 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 applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the inability to enforce their claims, payments having been ordered by the Commercial Court ’ s final d ecisions specified in the Annex .
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
The Court considers that, in accordance, with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court, the applications should be joined, given their common factual and legal background.
B. The applicants ’ complaint s under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
As noted above, the applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the final court decisions rendered in their favour.
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 obligations ... 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.”
The Government submitted, inter alia , that the applicants ’ complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six-month rule. According to the Government, in the circumstances of the present case s , this time-limit had started to run when the decision on the termination of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company had been published in the Official Gazette and/or became final.
The applicants disagreed.
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 cases, the Court notes that the decision terminating the insolvency proceedings against the debt or became final on 16 July 2009. As the applicants lodged their applications between 28 January and 8 June 2010 , the Court considers that the applicants had not acted diligently . It therefore agrees with the Government ’ s position that the applications were introduced outside the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the C onvention .
It follows that the applications were introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance wit h Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the C onvention, there being no need for the Court to examine the remainder of the Government ’ s admissibility objections.
For these reasons, the Court , unanimously ,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Ján Å ikuta Deputy Registrar President
ANNEX
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
Date of the Final Domestic Decision
8615/10
30/01/2010
Dušanka MILOŠEVIĆ
31/01/1959
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
8642/10
02/02/2010
Miodrag MARINKOVIĆ
24/05/1961
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
8690/10
04/02/2010
Nada MILOJEVIĆ
17/01/1960
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
8692/10
28/01/2010
Dostana TARANOVIĆ
18/06/1956
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
8695/10
28/01/2010
Vesna SIMONOVIĆ
16/08/1959
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
11458/10
04/02/2010
Snežana RADOVIĆ
01/07/1965
Kragujevac
Nataša RADOVIĆ
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
11465/10
04/02/2010
Slavko RADOVIĆ
20/05/1961
Kragujevac
Nataša RADOVIĆ
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
11474/10
01/02/2010
Dragana OBRADOVIĆ
11/04/1959
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
14693/10
03/03/2010
Biserka MILIVOJEVIĆ
14/08/1959
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004
17271/10
17/02/2010
Radmila MARINKOVIĆ
13/11/1953
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
19815/10
31/03/2010
Javorka OBRENOVIĆ
29/01/1955
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
34486/10
08/06/2010
Nadica MILOÅ EVSKI
21/01/1960
Kragujevac
25/08/2003
11/10/2004