CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 septembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s2AB97D5E { width:200.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20147/13 Jelena SAMARDŽIĆ against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   September 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 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 Jelena Samardžić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Grabovci. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić. On 8 December 2003 the Ruma Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company DP “Nova Guma” AD (hereinafter “the debtor”), to pay the applicant’s late husband a specified amount on account of salary arrears. This judgment became final in January 2004. On 17 June 2010 the Sremska Mitrovica Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor and the applicant’s husband duly reported his claims based on the said judgment. On 5 October 2010 the Commercial Court recognized the claims of the applicant’s husband. The applicant’s husband passed away in 2012 and the applicant was declared as the sole heir of his claims by the Sremska Mitrovica Municipal Court’s decision of 6 March 2013. By 3 February 2014 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings and the debtor was struck from the relevant public register. The said final court judgment remains unenforced to the present day. The applicant never lodged a constitutional appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her late husband’s 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 The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since the applicant had never lodged a constitutional appeal. The applicant disagreed. The Court has ruled that as regards the non-enforcement of final judgments rendered against socially-owned companies undergoing insolvency proceedings and/or those which have ceased to exist, a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered as an effective remedy in respect of all applications lodged from 22 June 2012 onwards (see Marinković v. Serbia (dec.), no.   5353/11, § 59, 29 January 2013). In the present case, the Court notes that the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were opened on 17 June 2010 and that the applicant lodged her application with the Court after 22 June 2012, that is on 7 March 2013. The Court therefore agrees with the Government’s position that the application should be dismissed in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2015.   Marialena Tsirli   Valeriu Griţco Deputy Registrar   President