SECOND SECTION
Application no. 8182/07
Vinko RAGUŽ
against Serbia
lodged on 8 February 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vinko Raguž is a Croatian national born in 1940 who lives in Dubrovnik, Croatia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
On 28 August 2003 the Municipal Court in Gornji Milanovac (“the Municipal Court”) awarded the applicant compensation for damages against a third private party. This decision became final on 5 September 2003.
On 23 October 2003 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment by seizure and sale of the judgment debtor’s property.
On 21 December 2004 the Municipal Court informed the applicant that the enforcement by seizure and sale of the judgment debtor’s property was impossible. On 13 July 2005 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings. On 24 October 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s objection, quashed the decision of 13 July 2005 and ordered continuation of the enforcement.
On 11 October 2007 the Municipal Court suspended the enforcement proceedings due to the death of the judgment debtor. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision, which was served on him on 19 October 2007.
On 3 June 2008 the applicant filed a request for continuation of the enforcement proceedings.
On 20 June 2008 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
On 27 March 2009 the Municipal Court, on appeal, quashed the decision of 20 June 2008 and remitted the case for reconsideration.
On 16 April 2009 and 8 June 2009, the Municipal Court requested the applicant to identify the heirs and the subject of enforcement, and to deposit an advance for the costs of appointing a special representative for the heirs, respectively. It appears that the applicant failed to comply with the requests.
On 27 August 2009 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for continuation of the enforcement proceedings as unsubstantiated.
On 13 October 2009 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
There would appear to have been no developments in the proceedings since then.
B. Relevant domestic law
Enforcement Procedure Act 2000 (Zakon o izvršnom postupku; published in the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – OG SRY nos. 28/00, 73/00 and 71/01)
Article 32 § 1 provides that the courts will inform the parties and the heirs, if known, that the enforcement proceedings are suspended for the reason of the death of a party to the proceedings. Article 32 § 2 further provides that in the event that the heirs or their addresses are not known to the court, the court will, without further ado, appoint a special representative for them.
Article 33 provides that the costs of the enforcement proceedings fall upon the judgment debtor, except for unfounded enforcement requests or, in cases of withdrawal of enforcement requests, when the costs are born by the judgment creditor.
Articles 14 and 263 provide for subsidiary application of the Civil Procedure Act, except with respect to requests for suspension of the proceedings.
Civil Procedure Act 2004 (Zakon parničnom postupku; published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS no. 125/04)
Article 214 § 1 provides for the suspension of the proceedings for the reason of, inter alia, the death of a party to the proceedings.
Article 217 §§ 1 and 2 provides for the continuation of the proceedings when other relevant proceedings are finally resolved, or the court finds that there are no further reasons to wait for them to be finally resolved.
Article 163 provides that parties to the proceedings initially bear the costs of securing evidence, including the costs of a specially appointed representative.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgment rendered in his favour.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto with respect to the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour in the period from 3 March 2004 to 19 October 2007?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto with respect to the non-enforcement of the final domestic judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour in the period from 19 October 2007 to date? In particular, is the State responsible for the delay following the judgment debtor’s death, especially in view of the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant, and the obligations of the State as prescribed by Article 32 § 2 of the Enforcement Procedure Act 2000 and Article 217 § 2 of the Civil Procedure Act 2004?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy