SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37270/11
Milorad JOVIČIĆ against Serbia
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 October 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Peer Lorenzen,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Acting Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications listed in the Appendix hereto and lodged on the dates indicated therein,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants are all Serbian nationals, and their further personal details are set out in the Annex to this judgment.
2. They were all represented before the Court by Ms R. Garibović, a lawyer practising in Novi Pazar.
3. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
A. The circumstances of the case
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Introduction
5. All the applicants were employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6. Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
2. As regards the first applicant
(a) The first set of proceedings
7. On 16 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of 20,000 Serbian dinars (RSD) per month for March, April and May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay (regres za godišnji odmor) in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 7,000 for overtime, plus statutory interest;
(d) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006; and
(e) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs.
8. On 29 June 2006 the judgment became final.
9. On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
10. On 16 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
11. On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for June, July and August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 6,270 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
12. On 8 October 2006 the judgment became final.
13. On 12 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
14. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
3. As regards the second applicant
(a) The first set of proceedings
15. On 16 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for March, April and May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006; and
(d) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs.
16. On 29 June 2006 the judgment became final.
17. On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
18. On 16 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
19. On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for June, July and August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 6,270 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
20. On 7 October 2006 the judgment became final.
21. On 12 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
22. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
4. As regards the third applicant
(a) First set of proceedings
23. On 14 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 14,000 per month for March, April, May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(d) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006.
24. On an unspecified date the court decision became final.
25. On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
26. On 16 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
27. On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 14,000 per month for June, July, August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 3,750 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
28. On an unspecified date the court decision became final.
29. On 12 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
30. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(c) Third set of proceedings
31. On 17 April 2008 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 9,252 for September 2006, RSD 9,250 for October 2006, RSD 9,693 for November 2006, RSD 9,693 for December 2006, RSD 11,415 for January 2007, RSD 9,926 for February 2007, RSD 10,919 for March 2007, RSD 11,422 for April 2007, RSD 11,415 for May 2007, RSD 10,422 for June 2007, RSD 12, 606 for July 2007, RSD 13,179 for August 2007, RSD 11,460 for September 2007, RSD 13,179 for October 2007, RSD 12,606 for November 2007, and RSD 12,033 for November 2007;
(b) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period September 2006 to December 2007; and
(c) holiday pay for year 2007 in the amount of RSD 35,000.
32. On an unspecified date the judgment became final.
(d) Fourth set of proceedings
33. On 12 Mart 2009 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 2,837 for February 2008, RSD 11,760 for March 2008, RSD 12,330 for April 2008, RSD 12,320 for May 2008, RSD 11,760 for June 2008, RSD 12,880 for July 2008, and RSD 1,872 for August 2008, plus statutory interest; and
(b) RSD 3,000 for his legal costs.
34. On 25 March 2009 the judgment became final.
5. As regards the fourth applicant
(a) First set of proceedings
35. On 26 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 15,000 per month for March, April, May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(d) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006.
36. On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
37. On 15 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
38. On 21 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 15,000 per month for June, July, August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
39. On 10 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
40. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
6. As regards the fifth applicant
(a) First set of proceedings
41. On 14 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 14,000 per month for March, April, May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(d) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006.
42. On an unspecified date the judgment became final.
43. On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
44. On 16 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
45. On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 14,000 per month for June, July, August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 6,270 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
46. On an unspecified date the court decision became final.
47. On 12 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
48. On 4 January 2007 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(c) Third set of proceedings
49. On 11 January 2008 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 11,640 per month for March to December 2006 and January to November 2007, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 16,792.50 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 September 2006 to 1 December 2007.
50. On an unspecified date the judgment became final.
51. On 2 September 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
52. On 24 September 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(d) Fourth set of proceedings
53. On 10 February 2009 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 10,668 for December 2007, RSD 2,837 for February 2008, RSD11,760 for March 2008, RSD 12,330 for April 2008, RSD 12,320 for May 2008, RSD 11,760 for June 2008, RSD 14,352 for July 2008, and RSD 1,872 for August 2008, plus statutory interest; and
(b) RSD 3,000 for his legal costs.
54. On 18 March 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
55. On 17 May 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
7. As regards the sixth applicant
(a) First set of proceedings
56. On 19 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for March, April, May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(d) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006.
57. On 5 August 2006 the court decision became final.
58. On 9 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
59. On 17 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
60. On 21 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for June, July, August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
61. On 6 October 2006 the court decision became final.
62. On 10 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
63. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
8. As regards the seventh applicant
(a) First set of proceedings
64. On 12 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for March, April, May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay (regres za godišnji odmor) in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 6,400 in respect of per diem payments, plus statutory interest;
(d) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(e) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006.
65. On 2 July 2007 the court decision became final.
66. On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
67. On 16 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
68. On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 20,000 per month for June, July, and August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 6,270 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
69. On 8 October 2006 the court decision became final.
70. On 12 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
71. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
9. As regards the eighth applicant
(a) First set of proceedings
72. On 16 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 16,000 per month for March, April, May 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) holiday pay in the amount of RSD 10,000, plus statutory interest;
(c) RSD 4,650 for his legal costs; and
(d) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 April 2003 to 1 June 2006.
73. On 10 August 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
74. On 22 August 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(b) Second set of proceedings
On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 16,000 per month for June, July, August 2006, plus statutory interest;
(b) RSD 3,750 for his legal costs; and
(c) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to September 2006.
75. On 11 October 2006 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Požega Municipal Court.
76. On 17 October 2006 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
(c) Third set of proceedings
77. On 10 February 2009 the Požega Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a) salary arrears in the amount of RSD 4,500 for January 2008, RSD 2,837 for February 2008, RSD11,760 for March 2008, RSD 12,330 for April 2008, RSD 12,320 for May 2008, RSD 11,760 for June 2008, RSD 14,352 for July 2008, and RSD 1,872 for August 2008, plus statutory interest; and
(b) RSD 3,000 for his legal costs.
78. On 13 March 2009 the court decision became final.
10. The insolvency proceedings
79. On 12 July 2010 the Užice Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor, which led to the ongoing enforcement proceedings before the Požega Municipal Court being stayed.
80. This decision was published on the Užice Commercial Court’s notice board on the same date. It was also published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 4 August 2010.
81. The applicants duly submitted their respective claims based on the above court decisions.
82. On 17 April 2012 some of the debtor’s property was sold. The remaining assets were advertised for sale in the newspapers and a public auction was scheduled for 29 June 2012.
83. The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.
11. The debtor’s status
84. On 30 December 2002 the debtor was privatised.
85. On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.
86. Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of the debtor’s shares.
87. On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. The Insolvency Act (Zakon o stečaju, published in OG RS no. 104/2009, 99/2011 and 71/2012)
88. This Acts regulates the manner and conditions for initiating and conducting insolvency proceedings against legal persons. Article 2 of the Act states that the aim of insolvency is to ensure the most favourable collective settlement for creditors.
89. Article 8 of the Act states that all insolvency proceedings are to be conducted urgently.
90. In accordance with Articles 19 § 1 and Article 22 § 1, in insolvency proceedings against socially/State-owned companies the role of insolvency administrator is to be performed by the Privatisation Agency.
91. Article 71 §§ 2 and 3 provides that the announcement on the opening of insolvency proceedings is to be drafted by the insolvency judge immediately after the rendering of the decision to open insolvency proceedings. The announcement must be published on the court’s notice board, in one well-known daily newspaper, and in the “Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”.
92. Article 73 § 1 stipulates that the legal consequences of the opening of insolvency proceedings are to take effect on the date the announcement of the opening of the insolvency proceedings is posted on the court’s notice board.
93. Article 93 §§ 1 and 2 provides that “from the day of the opening of the insolvency proceedings” the debtor cannot simultaneously be subjected to a separate enforcement procedure. Any ongoing enforcement proceedings must thus be stayed, and new enforcement proceedings cannot be instituted as long as the insolvency proceedings are pending.
2. Other relevant domestic law and practice
94. The relevant domestic law concerning the status of socially-owned companies and the relevant provisions concerning enforcement proceedings are outlined in the case of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., 15 January 2008, §§ 57-64 and §§ 71-76. Further, the case-law of the Constitutional Court in respect of socially-owned companies, together with the relevant provisions concerning constitutional appeals and the privatisation of socially-owned companies, are outlined in the case of Marinković v. Serbia (dec.), no. 5353/11, 29 January 2013, §§ 26 -29 and §§ 31-44.
COMPLAINTS
95. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the respondent State had failed to enforce the final court decisions rendered in their favour.
96. The applicants further complained, under Article 13 of the Convention, of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
97. 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’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
98. As noted above, the applicants complained about the non-enforcement of final court decisions rendered in their favour.
99. The relevant provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and 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.
...”
1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
100. The Government submitted that the Constitutional Court had harmonised its case-law with that of the Court in the context of the respondent State’s liability for non-enforcement of final judgments rendered against socially/State-owned companies. They maintained that the applicants had failed to make use of a constitutional appeal, and that their applications should therefore be rejected on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
101. The applicants argued that a constitutional appeal could not be considered effective in the particular circumstances of their cases.
102. The Court observes that it has already held that in matters concerning the non-enforcement of judgments rendered against socially/State-owned companies undergoing insolvency proceedings and/or that had ceased to exist, a constitutional appeal should indeed be considered an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, but only in respect of applications introduced against Serbia after 21 June 2012 (see Marinković v. Serbia, cited above § 59), and notes that all the applicants had introduced their complaints well before that date (see Annex). It follows that the Government’s objections concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
2. The six-month rule
103. The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their respective applications with the Court outside the six-month time-limit. In particular, this time-limit had started to run when the opening of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor was announced on the Užice Commercial Court’s notice board, that is, on 12 July 2010. Since the applicants must have known that the enforcement proceedings would be stayed on that date and that it was not certain whether they would be able to settle their claims in full within the insolvency proceedings, they should have lodged their applications within six months of 12 July 2010. Since the applicants had failed to do so, the Government invited the Court to reject all the applications as out of time.
104. The applicants argued that their respective complaints concerned both the enforcement proceedings and the insolvency proceedings, and that it could not therefore be concluded that they had lodged their applications outside the six-month time-limit.
105. Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that the Court may only deal with a complaint which has been introduced within six months of the date of the final decision rendered in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as the non-enforcement of final court decisions in the present cases, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the continuing situation (see, among other authorities, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 50, ECHR 1999‑II and, mutatis mutandis, Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX). In the context of socially/State-owned companies, a period of non-execution should not be limited to the enforcement stage only, but should also include the subsequent insolvency proceedings (see, inter alia, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 115). It is further observed, without prejudging the merits of the case, that the State cannot cite either the lack of its own funds or the indigence of the debtor as an excuse for the non-enforcement of final court decisions rendered against socially-owned companies, as entities which do not enjoy “sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State” (see, R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, cited above, § 115, together with § 98).
106. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that all the applicants obtained final domestic decisions in their favour and requested their execution either in the enforcement proceedings or in the insolvency proceedings (see paragraphs 7-81 above and the appended table). The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing (see paragraph 83), which means that the final court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced. Consequently, the Court finds that the six-month rule cannot be applied in the present case, and dismisses the Government’s objection in this respect.
3. Compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
107. The Government informed the Court on 1 April 2013 that the debtor had been privatised in December 2008 and that the respondent State therefore could not be found liable for the debts of the debtor.
108. This Court will have regard to this new information at the merits stage. No other grounds for declaring the applicant’s complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 inadmissible have been established. They must therefore be declared admissible.
C. The applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention
109. The applicants further complained of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the unenforced court decisions.
110. Article 13 reads as follows:
“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.”
111. The Court notes that these complaints are linked to the ones examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to discontinue the joint consideration of the admissibility and merits of the applications, in accordance with Article 29 § 1 of the Convention;
Declares the applications admissible, without prejudging the merits of the cases.
Lawrence EarlyGuido Raimondi
Acting RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant’s name,
year of birth
and place of residence
Final domestic decision (issuing authority/case no., adopted on ...)
Enforcement order (enforcement authority, case no., date of order)
37270/11
27/04/2011
Milorad JOVIČIĆ
16/06/1954
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 380/06 of 16 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 733/06 of 22 September 2006
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 501/06 of 17/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 651//06 of 17/10/2006
37278/11
27/04/2011
Milijan ĐORĐEVIĆ
18/09/1957
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 430/06 of 16 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 727/06 of 22 September 2006
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 425/06 of 16/08/2006
2 Municipal Court in Požega
I. 669/06 of 17/10/2006
47705/11
10/05/2011
Zoran MIJAILOVIĆ
13/08/1956
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 508/06 of 14 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 679/06 of 22 September 2006
3. Municipal Court in Užice
P1. 119/08 of 17 April 2008
4. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 125/2009 of 12 March 2009
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 441/06 of 16/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 688/06 of 17/10/2006
3 and 4. Enforcement requested in the insolvency proceedings (potraživanje prijavljeno u stečajnom postupku) Commercial Court in Užice (I St. 55/10)
47712/11
10/05/2011
Željko RNJAKOVIĆ
13/04/1971
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 497/06 of 26 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 679/06 of 21 September 2006
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 457/06 of 15/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 636/06 of 17/10/2006
47725/11
10/05/2011
Dragan IVANOVIĆ
07/09/1955
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 528/06 of 14 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 659/06 of 22 September 2006
3. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 544/07 of 11 January 2008
4. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 7/2009 of 10 February 2009
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 426/06 of 16/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 617/06 of 04/01/2008
3. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 150/08 of 24/09/2009
4. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 127/09 of 11 May 2009
56203/11
27/04/2011
Milijan SEKULIĆ
30/10/1958
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 434/06 of 19 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 722/06 of 21 September 2006
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 500/06 of 17/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 631/06 of 17/10/2008
56238/11
27/04/2011
Petar MILOVANOVIĆ
03/07/1961
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 419/06 of 12 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 667/2006 of 22 September 2006
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 422/06 of 16/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 663/06 of 17/10/2008
75689/11
10/05/2011
Miodrag KOVAČEVIĆ
02/12/1955
Požega
1. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 382/06 of 16 June 2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 739/06 of 22 September 2006
3. Municipal Court in Požega
P1. 126/09 of 27 February 2009
1. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 524/06 of 22/08/2006
2. Municipal Court in Požega
I. 643/06 of 17/10/2008
3.Commercial Court in Užice (I St. 55/10) Enforcement requested in the insolvency proceedings (potraživanje prijavljeno u stečajnom postupku)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy