THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27857/10
Nenad VIDOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 August 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2010,
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, Mr Nenad Vidović, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Novi Sad. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Ignjatić, a lawyer practising in Beočin.
The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, at the time, Ms V. Rodić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 May 2000 the Belgrade Commercial Court ordered a socially-owned company DD Industrija šećera i limunske kiseline “Šelk 911“ from Ćuprija (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay a private company (hereinafter “the creditor”) , whose sole owner and founder was the applicant’s late father, a specified amount on account of a contract concerning the delivery services.
The judgment became final and enforceable by 25 November 2000.
On 16 August 2002, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Ćuprija Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2000.
On 20 February 2006 the Kragujevac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor and the creditor duly reported its claims based on the above-mentioned judgment. The Commercial Court did not recognize the creditor’s claims.
On 18 April 2008 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings. That decision became final on 1 May 2008.
On 9 September 2008 the debtor was struck from the relevant public register.
The final court judgment rendered in creditor’s favour remains unenforced to the present day.
On 14 October 2014 the applicant, ultimately, inherited all rights and obligations concerning the creditor.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment rendered in favour his father’s company. These complaints fall to be examined under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
The Government argued, inter alia, that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-observance of the six-month rule. Specifically, the applicant lodged the application three years after it was clear that the company’s claim was not recognized in the insolvency proceedings. The Government also relied on the Court’s decision in Sokolov and Others v. Serbia, cited above.
The applicant disagreed.
The Court has held that, in the context of the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions against insolvent socially-owned companies, the applicants should lodge their applications, at the latest, within six months as of the date when the decision on the termination of the insolvency proceedings had become final (see Sokolov and Others, cited above, § 34). In the present case, the Court notes that the decision terminating the insolvency proceedings against the debtor became final on 1 May 2008. Since the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 5 May 2010, the Court considers that the applicant had not acted diligently.
The Court therefore cannot but conclude that the application was indeed introduced outside the six-month time-limit and does not consider it necessary to examine the other admissibility objections raised by the Government.
The application must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 September 2016.
Fatoş AracıPere Pastor Vilanova
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy