THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21477/13
Nada SPASIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2013,
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 applicant, Ms Nada Spasić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Čačak. She was represented before the Court by Ms D. Obradović, a lawyer practising in Čačak.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was employed by Holding kompanija Solid (hereinafter “the debtor”), a company comprised of socially-owned capital.
On 2 March 2005 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Čačak ordered the debtor to pay the applicant 5,199 Serbian dinars (RSD - 65 euros (EUR)), on account of salary arrears due for the period from May 1994 to June 1996, plus the statutory interest. In addition, the applicant was awarded RSD 63,250 (EUR 785) for the costs and expenses of the civil proceedings, namely, eleven submissions, twenty-two hearings, an expert report and court fees. By 24 September 2005 this judgment became both final and enforceable.
On 20 October 2005, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court in Subotica ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 2 March 2005 by means of a bank transfer and awarded the applicant an additional amount of RSD 2,800 (EUR 30) for the enforcement costs. This decision became final on an unspecified date.
On 12 August 2008, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court changed the means of enforcement and ordered seizure and sale of the debtor’s movable assets. This decision became final on an unspecified date.
On 18 November 2009 the bailiff seized office furniture found on the debtor’s premises of total estimated value RSD 80,000 (EUR 845). On 27 November 2009 the Municipal Court confirmed the seizure.
After two failed attempts to sell that furniture at a public auction, on 9 March 2012 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Subotica, now acting as the competent court, ordered the applicant to take over the furniture or, alternatively, to find a buyer for it. Since the applicant failed to abide by the order of 9 March 2012, on 30 April 2012 the Court of First Instance terminated the enforcement proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law is set out in the Court’s judgment of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., 15 January 2008.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the final court judgment rendered in her 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
Although the Government did not raise an objection in this connection, the Court considers it appropriate to determine on its own motion whether the application is admissible under Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that:
...
(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.”
The Court has previously held that the “significant disadvantage” criterion applies where, notwithstanding a potential violation of a right from a purely legal point of view, the level of severity attained does not warrant consideration by an international court (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011). The level of severity shall be assessed in the light of the financial impact of the matter in dispute and the importance of the case for the applicant (see Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, § 25, 14 June 2011).
The present case concerns an alleged failure of a socially-owned company to pay the applicant EUR 65 on account of salary arrears and EUR 815 for costs and expenses incurred during the civil and enforcement proceedings. The Court cannot fail to note the disproportion between a small size of the principal debt and the high costs and expenses accrued from the extensive use of the court proceedings.
In evaluation of the subjective significance of the proceedings for the applicant, the Court observes that she effectively rejected the enforcement of the judgment rendered in her favour by failing to take over the debtor’s seized property, the value of which was estimated at EUR 845. Hence, notwithstanding the applicant’s claim to the contrary, her conduct demonstrates apparent absence of significant interest in the outcome of the proceedings (see, by analogy, Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, 13 March 2012).
The Court, therefore, concludes that the applicant did not suffer any objective significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention.
Moreover, the Court observes that a complaint of non-enforcement of a final domestic decision rendered against socially-owned companies, already subject of the Court’s well-established case-law (see, among many other authorities, R. Kačapor and Others, cited above, §§ 115-116 and § 120; and Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 et seq., §§ 123-124 and §§ 133-134, 13 January 2009), does not concern an important question of principle, which might justify examining it any further.
Lastly, as to whether the case was “duly considered by a domestic tribunal”, the Court held in the Holub case (see Holub v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010) that the term “case” referred to in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention is to be distinguished from the terms “application” or “complaint”. Rather, it corresponds to the notion of the “case” in the sense of an action, claim or request that was submitted to the domestic courts. That being so, the Court notes that the present applicant’s “case” has been thoroughly examined in both civil and enforcement proceedings and has thereby been duly considered by a domestic tribunal within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b).
Consequently, the application must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (b) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 26 February 2015.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy