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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s2AB97D5E { width:200.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33866/11 Slavica BLAGA 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 19 April 2011, 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 Slavica Blaga, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Pančevo. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Rodić. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case On 27 May 1993 the Pančevo Municipal Court ordered a socially-owned company DP “Utva aluminijum” from Pančevo (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay the applicant a specified amount on account of salary arrears. This judgment became final and enforceable by 18 July 1993. On 15 September 1993 upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Pančevo Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 27   May 1993. On 11 January 2008 the Pančevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor and the applicant duly reported her claims based on the above-mentioned judgment. On 24 April 2008 the Commercial Court recognized a part of the applicant’s claims. On 6 April 2010 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings. That decision became final on 5 May 2010 and was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 1 June 2010 (no.114/10). On 29 October 2010 the debtor was struck from the relevant public register. The final court judgment rendered in the applicant’s favour remains only partly enforced to the present day. B.     Relevant domestic law The domestic law concerning the status of socially-owned companies and insolvency proceedings is outlined in the cases of Marčić and Others v.   Serbia , no. 17556/05, § 29, 30 October 2007; R. Kačapor and Others v.   Serbia , nos. 2269/06 et al., §§ 68-76, 15 January 2008; Adamović v.   Serbia , no. 41703/06, §§ 17‑21, 2 October 2012; and Sokolov and Others v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 30859/10, § 20, 14 January 2014. COMPLAINTS The applicant essentially complained about the non-enforcement of the 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 to the Convention. THE LAW The Government asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible for non-observance of the six-month rule. According to the Government, in the circumstances of the present case, this time-limit had started to run when the decision on the termination of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company had been published in the Official Gazette and/or become final. 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 5 May 2010. Since the applicant lodged her application with the Court on 19 April 2011, the Court considers that the applicant had not acted diligently. The Court therefore agrees with the Government’s position that the application was introduced outside the six-month time-limit and must 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 October 2015.   Marialena Tsirli   Valeriu Griţco Deputy Registrar   President