THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 15833/13 and 43043/13
Cveta JOVIĆ against Serbia
and Stanica ŽIVANOVIĆ against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 11 February 2013 and 30 April 2013 respectively,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Cveta Jović and Ms Stanica Živanović, are Serbian nationals, who were born in 1964 and 1952 and live in Loznica and Krupanj respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr T. Radišić, a lawyer practising in Loznica.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
The applicants were employed by DP Konfenkcija “Moda” AD, a socially-owned company based in Loznica (hereinafter “the debtor”).
On 21 December 2004 and 17 July 2003, respectively, the Loznica Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicants specified amounts on account of salary arrears. These decisions became final by 2007.
On 11 July 2007 and 13 November 2008 respectively, upon the applicants’ requests to that effect, the Loznica Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said decisions.
On 2 June 2009 the Valjevo Commercial Court opened the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor and the applicants duly reported their claims based on the said decisions.
By 8 January 2014 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings and the debtor was struck from the relevant public register.
The said final decisions remain unenforced to the present day.
The applicants never lodged constitutional appeals.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final decisions rendered in their favour. These complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background.
The Government asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since the applicants had failed to lodge constitutional appeals.
The applicants reiterated their original complaints.
The Court has ruled that as regards the non-enforcement of final judgments rendered against socially-owned companies undergoing insolvency proceedings and/or those which have ceased to exist, a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered as an effective remedy in respect of all applications lodged from 22 June 2012 onwards (see Marinković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 5353/11, § 59, 29 January 2013).
In the present case, the Court notes that the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were opened on 2 June 2009 and that the applicants lodged their applications with the Court after 22 June 2012, that is on 11 February 2013 and 30 April 2013 respectively.
The Court therefore agrees with the Government’s position that the applications should be dismissed in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2015.
Marialena TsirliValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy