Published on 6 December 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 20811/20 BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF CM-EXPERT LTD. against Croatia lodged on 14 May 2020 communicated on 17 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the Supreme Court’s alleged departure from its earlier decision in the applicant company’s case.

In particular, the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against Đakovo Township with a view to obtaining payment for consulting services rendered on the basis of a contract of 8 March 1994 with company D., the sole shareholder of which was Đakovo Township. The applicant company argued that the Township had the standing to be sued because on 8 December 1994 it amended the decision establishing company D. in a manner which rendered the Township jointly and severally liable for the debts of that company.

On 18 March 2010, upon the applicant company’s appeal on points of law ( revizija ), the Supreme Court quashed the judgments whereby the lower courts ruled against the applicant company and remitted the case. It held that on 8 December 1994 the Township had made a unilateral declaration which rendered it jointly and severally liable for the debts of company D. The court also indicated that the only issue that had to be determined in the fresh proceedings was whether that declaration applied only to future debts of company D. or also to those incurred beforehand.

In the fresh proceedings the civil courts again dismissed the applicant company’s action. On 11 November 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant company’s second appeal on points of law holding, this time, that the Township’s unilateral declaration had been null and void as it had been contrary to one of the basic tenets of company law that shareholders of a company could not be held liable for the company’s debts.

The applicant company complains that the Supreme Court not only departed from its previous decision in the case but also from its own decision adopted on 19 November 2003 in a factually and legally identical case in which the plaintiff was another company.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the Supreme Court in its decision of 11 November 2014 depart from its previous decision of 18 March 2010 in the applicant company’s case? If so, was that departure in breach of the principle of legal certainty, inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?