Communicated on 16 September 2014

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos 819/08 and 6234/08 CROATIAN CHAMBER OF ECONOMY against Serbia and VEGRAD DD against Serbia lodged on 4 December 2007 and 19 December 2007 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant in the first case (application no. 819/08) , the Croatian Chamber of Economy ( Hrvatska g ospodarska k omora ) , is based in Zagreb, Croatia. It is represented before the Court by Mr P. Fellner , a lawyer practising in Zagreb .

2 . The applicant in the second case (application no 6234/08) , Vegrad DD , is a joint-stock company based in Velenje , Slovenia. It is represented before the Court by Mr M. Tešić , a lawyer practising in Niš , Serbia.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. As regards application no. 819/08

4 . On 26 November 2004 the applicant, the Croatian Chamber of Economy, filed a civil claim with the Belgrade Commercial Court against the Serbian Chamber of Commerce and the Montenegrin Chamber of Economy. The applicant sought, inter alia , a judicial declaration to the effect that it was the owner of 23% of a number of pieces of real estate co-owned by the respondents. The impugned assets had, in the meantime, been transferred to the respondents based on specific legislation enacted by the Serbian Parliament.

5 . Between 11 February 2005 and 20 October 2006 the Belgrade Commercial Court held eight hearings.

6 . On 3 November 2006 it suspended the proceedings, stating that the entire matter needed to be regulated between Serbia and Croatia by means of a bilateral treaty, which it deemed to be a preliminary legal issue (see paragraph 19 below). The court referred to Articles 4 and 7 of Annex G to the Agreement on Succession Issues (see paragraphs 22-25 below).

7 . On 29 December 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal.

8 . On 9 February 2007 this appeal was supplemented with the opinion of the Croatian Ministry of Justice, attesting that the applicant was not a State body and that the real estate in question was consequently never a succession-related issue.

9 . On 26 April 2007 the High Commercial Court upheld the suspension of 3 November 2006. The court stated, inter alia , that the successor Sates will be concluding bilateral agreements with a view to providing for appropriate procedures and bodies entrusted with the processing of claims such as the plaintiff ’ s. Should, however, claims of this sort be rejected within the said procedure, it would ultimately be up to the courts of law to adjudicate the matter. The applicant received the High Commercial Court ’ s decision on 6 June 2007.

10 . On 23 October 2007 the Serbian Ministry of Finance stated that the possible conclusion of bilateral treaties w ould be but one way of implementing Annex G to the Agreement on Succession Issues and only should this be deemed necessary.

2. As regards application no. 6234/08

11 . On 11 October 2003 the applicant, VEGRAD DD, filed a civil claim with the Belgrade Commercial Court against DGP BEGRAD, a company with its seat in Serbia, seeking, inter alia , a judicial declaration to the effect that it remained the sole owner of specified movable and immovable assets. The assets in question had, in the meantime, been transferred to the respondent based on a decree adopted by the Serbian Government.

12 . Following several remittals, on 26 January 2006 the Belgrade Commercial Court suspended the proceedings . It explained that the entire matter needed to be regulated between Serbia and Slovenia by means of a bilateral treaty, which it deemed to be a preliminary legal issue. The court further referred to Articles 4 and 7 of Annex G to the Agreement on Succession Issues and stated that the successor Sates will be concluding bilateral agreements with a view to providing for appropriate procedures and bodies entrusted with the processing of claims such as the plaintiff ’ s. Should such claims , however, be rejected it would ultimately be up to the courts of law to adjudicate the matter .

13 . On 24 October 2006 the High Commercial Court upheld this decision on appeal.

14 . On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s further complaint ( zahtev za za š titu zakonitosti ) concerning the impugned suspension as procedurally inadmissible. The applicant received the Supreme Court ’ s decision in July 2007.

15 . By 28 September 2007 the assets in question were sold as part of the insolvency proceedings opened in respect of DGP BEGRAD.

16 . The applicant is a former socially owned company. As of 31 December 2009 it was a joint stock company whose majority stockholder, VEGRAD NALO Ž BA DD, was itself faced with insolvency issues.

17 . In late 2010 media reports suggested that a Slovenian State-owned company and/or statutory corporation might instead become the applicant ’ s new majority stockholder.

18 . The insolvency proceedings in respect of the applicant and VEGRAD NALO Ž BA DD , respectively, are still pending.

B. Relevant Serbian law

19 . Article 215 read in conjunction with Article 12 of the Civil Proceedings Act ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 125⁄04) provide, inter alia , that a court may suspend an ongoing civil suit if it decides not to rule itself on a preliminary legal issue ( prethodno pitanje ).

C . Relevant Croatian law

20 . The relevant provisions of the Croatian Chamber of Economy Act ( Zakon o Hrvatskoj gospodarskoj komori , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia nos. 66/91, 73/91 and 77/93) read as follows:

Article 1

“The Croatian Chamber of Economy is an independent ... business related organisation which promotes, represents and co - ordinates the common interests of its members before government al bodies and other authorities , in side the country and abroad.”

The Croatian Chamber of Economy has the status of a legal person.”

Article 2 § 1

“ Members of the Croatian Chamber of Economy are legal and physical persons who carry out economic activities with the ir headquarters in the territory of the Republic of Croatia. ”

Article 8

“The manner of electi on for the bodies of the Croatian Chamber of Economy, their structure and competence shall be determined by the Statute of the Croatian Chamber of Economy.”

Article 11

“The Croatian Chamber of Economy shall perform specific public functions as determined by law.

Attestations, certificates and other documents issued by the Croatian Chamber of Economy in the execution of public functions shall have the character and significance of official documents.”

Article 20 § 1

“The funds necessary for the work of the Croatian Chamber of Economy shall be secured through the contributions made or the membership fees paid by ... [its] ... members, through compensation received for any services rendered and through other sources. ”

21 . The Croatian Chamber of Economy would currently appear to be carrying out a number of lawfully delegated activities related to, inter alia , the following: (a) issuing various import, export and transport certificates; (b) harmonising road transport costs and schedules; (c) recording real estate related information; (d) organising specialist exams for real estate agents; (e) keeping a register of all printed media; and (f) offering mediation services in consumer protection lawsuits.

D . The Agreement on Succession Issues

22 . This Agreement was the result of nearly ten years of negotiations . It was signed on 29 June 2001 and entered into force between Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (later succeeded by Serbia), Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 2 June 2004.

23 . Annex G of this Agreement deals with “private property and acquired rights”.

24 . Article 4 of Annex G reads as follows:

“The successor States shall take such action as may be required by general principles of law and otherwise appropriate to ensure the effective application of the principles set out in this Annex, such as concluding bilateral agreements and notifying their courts and other competent authorities.”

25 . Article 7 of Annex G provides as follows:

“All natural and legal persons from each successor State shall, on the basis of reciprocity, have the same right of access to the courts, administrative tribunals and agencies, of that State and of the other successor States for the purpose of realising the protection of their rights.”

COMPLAINTS

26 . The applicants in both cases, that is the Croatian Chamber of Economy and VEGRAD DD, complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about being denied access to a court in the determination of their civil claims as well as the length of their suspended civil suits respectively.

27 . VEGRAD DD further complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, about having had no effective domestic remedy at its disposal in respect of the impugned suspension.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

As regards application no. 819/08

1 . Can the Croatian Chamber of Economy be considered to be a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention ? In particular, does it participate in the exercise of governmental powers, run a public service or perform other public duties under the control or supervision of the Croatian State , and, if so, what is the nature of these public services and/or duties (see , for example, Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Timişoara (no. 2) v. Romania , no s . 23520/05 and others , § § 14-17, 16 July 2009)?

2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Has the Croatian Chamber of Economy been denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right to a court” in the determination of its civil rights and obligations (see, mutatis mutandis , Multiplex v. Croatia , no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003 )?

As regards application no. 6234/08

1 . Can VEGRAD DD be considered to be a “non-governmental organisation” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention ? In particular, does it enjoy sufficient operational and institutional independence from the Slovenian State , and to what extent, if at all, are its assets controlled and /or managed by the latter ( see, for example, ZASTAVA IT TURS v. Serbia ( dec. ), no . 24922/12 , 9 April 2013; Khachatryan v. Armenia , no. 31761/04, § § 49-55 , 1 December 2009) ?

The parties are further invited to provide the Court with information and relevant documentation in respect of the share capital structure of VEGRAD DD, as well as the share capital structures and current legal statuses of all of its major shareholders.

2. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Has VEGRAD DD been denied, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the “right to a court” in the determination of its civil rights and obligations (see, mutatis mutandis , Multiplex v. Croatia , no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003)?

4. Did VEGRAD DD have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its Convention complaints under Articles 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention ?