Communicated on 10 December 2018
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 54839/17 and 71093/17
Mihailo MADŽAROVIĆ and others
against Montenegro
lodged on 25 July 2017 and 11 September 2017 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants in the present cases complain about a lack of access to court and their alleged deprivation of property caused thereby. They rely on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
Application no. 54839/17
The applicants submit, in particular, that the debtor company “T” (at the time solely owned by the second and third applicants) duly appealed against the decision of the Commercial Court of 25 November 2013 (relating to the transfer of its shares to a creditor). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as withdrawn, even though it had been withdrawn by an unauthorised person, of which the Court of Appeal was informed duly and in a timely manner.
Application no. 71093/17
The applicants submit, in particular, that the debtor company “T” (at the time solely owned by the second and third applicants) duly appealed against the decision of the Commercial Court of 8 November 2013 (relating to the transfer of its shares to a creditor). The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as withdrawn, even though it had been withdrawn by an unauthorised person, of which the Court of Appeal was informed duly and in a timely manner.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Are the first applicant’s complaints compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae, given that he is the sole owner of the second and third applicants, who were at the relevant time the sole owners of the debtor company “T” (see, mutatis mutandis, Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; see, also, KIPS DOO and Drekalović v. Montenegro (Merits), no. 28766/06, §§ 86-87, 26 June 2018 (not yet final); and Vujović and Lipa D.O.O. v. Montenegro, no. 18912/15, §§ 28-30, 20 February 2018)?
2. Were the decisions of the Court of Appeals of 18 February 2014 to reject as withdrawn the debtor company’s appeal against the decision of the Commercial Court of 25 November 2013 (application no. 54839/17) and of 8 November 2013 (application no. 71093/17) in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants suffered a violation of their right of access to a court guaranteed by this Article (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016, and, mutatis mutandis, Vujović and Lipa D.O.O., cited above, § 44)?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 45, ECHR 2002‑IV; Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, § 73, 16 July 2009; and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
APPENDIXMihailo MADŽAROVIĆ (the first applicant) is a Montenegrin and Slovenian national who was born in 1949, and lives in Ljubljana.BERMONT DOO (the second applicant) is a company established in Montenegro in 2000, with its seat in Podgorica.ZETMONT DOO (the third applicant) is a company established in Montenegro in 2000, with its seat in Podgorica.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy