SECOND SECTION

Application no. 49915/08 Milan IGNJATOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 19 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Milan Ignjatović , is a Serbian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Donji Milanovac . He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Boškić , a lawyer practising in Majdanpek .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The labour-related proceedings

In December 1998 the applicant had been re-assigned to a lower post by his employer, the “ Ðerdap ” company ( Ribarsko gazdinstvo “ Ðerdap ” ), and, subsequently, he had been dismissed on 20 January 2000. These two decisions adopted by the company ’ s director had been upheld by the employer ’ s Management Board.

On 18 February 1999 he filed a civil claim against his employer, seeking reinstatement to a suitable position, as well as the outstanding salaries and social benefits.

On 25 January 2001 the Municipal Court in Majdanpek (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) declared the employer ’ s decisions of December 1998 and January 2001 null and void and ordered the applicant ’ s reinstatement.

On 21 November 2001 the District Court in Negotin upheld the annulment and quashed the reinstatement.

In the resumed proceedings, on 19 June 2003 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant (P.133/99) and ordered his employer to:

( i ) reinstate him within 8 days to a post which corresponded to his professional qualifications;

(ii) pay him the outstanding salarie s, due from 1 January 1999 to 1 March 2003, in the amount of 256,858.27 dinars (“RSD”/approximately 3,800 euros (“EUR”)), plus statutory interest accrued as of 1 May 2003;

(iii) pay him the pension and disability insurance contributions (“ doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje ”) due for that period; and

(iv) pay RSD 50,750 (approximately EUR 755) for his legal costs.

On 23 October 2003 the District Court upheld this judgment.

2. The enforcement proceedings

On 10 November 2003 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment in respect of the outstanding salaries and costs, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.

On 16 February 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant ’ s request and issued an enforcement order to that effect ( I. 7/04).

On 26 February 2004 the applicant also requested the enforcement of the remainder of the judgment in question.

On 18 October 2004 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order (I.84/04), requiring the debtor to reinstate the applicant to his previous post.

On 19 October 2004 the Municipal Court issued yet another enforcement order and instructed the debtor to pay RSD 90,068.96 (approximately EUR 1340) on the account of the unpaid social benefits.

It would appear that none of the above-mentioned enforcement orders has been enforced to date.

3. Legal status of the debtor

The debtor in the present case had been a socially-owned company. In 1994 it was transformed into a joint stock company predominantly consisting of State-owned capital.

According to certain unofficial reports, it would appear that the debtor was subject to an unsuccessful privatisation.

The company was ultimately deleted from the commercial corporations register on 31 August 2010.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the respondent State ’ s failure to enforce final court judgment rendered on 19 June 2003 in his favour.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ? In particular, does the failure to enforce final and enforceable judgment of 19 June 2003 in the applicant ’ s favour amount to a violation of this provision (see , mutatis mutandis , Hornsby v. Greece , 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II and Pini and Others v. Romania , nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, ECHR 2004-V ; see, Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 35091/02 et seq. , ECHR 2004 ‑ XII )?

2 . The Government are invited to inform the Court whether the debtor at issue was , at the relevant time, a joint stock company predominantly comprised of socially/State-owned capital and/or a company effectively controlled or managed by the State and , if so, to what extent, a s well as to provide all relevant documents in this respect (see, mutatis mutandis , Mykhaylenky and Others v. Ukraine (cited above) and R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia , nos. 2269/06 et seq . , 1 5 January 2008 ).