CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 26280/12 Dragan PRŠIĆ against Serbia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   February 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 12 September 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Mr M. Moskovljević, a lawyer practising in Kruševac. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   S.   Carić, the Government’s Agent at the time. The applicants are former employees of the same socially-owned company - Građevinsko preduzeće Jastrebac - from Kruševac (hereinafter: the debtor). In the course of insolvency proceedings against the debtor on 11   July 2003 the Kraljevo Commercial Court adopted decisions (domestic case no. S St. 2505/02) according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicants certain sums. At the time of the lodging of the application, this decision remained unenforced. On 12 September 2011 each applicant lodged two separate applications before the Court complaining about the non-enforcement of the same above ‑ cited decision. These applications were registered under nos.   26280/12 and 27992/12 with respect to the first applicant; nos.   26251/12 and 28107/12 with respect of the second applicant; and nos.   26171/12 and 28343/12 with respect to the third applicant. On 17 December 2013 the Court adopted the decision to strike-out the applications nos. 26171/12, 26251/12 and 27992/12 from the list of cases following the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The terms of the settlement provided that the Government was ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further provided that within three-month period the Government offered to pay to the applicants the sums awarded in the domestic decision no. S St. 2505/02, less any amounts which may have already been paid on the basis of the said decisions and that this payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases. THE LAW The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. The Court notes that the complaints raised in the present applications are substantially the same as the ones raised by the same applicants in applications nos. 26171/12, 26251/12 and 27992/12, which were struck-out from the list of cases by decision of the Court of 17 December 2013 following the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further notes that present applications contain no relevant new facts. They are therefore inadmissible under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 10 March 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   26280/12 12/09/2011 Dragan PRŠIĆ 10/02/1952 Kruševac     28107/12 12/09/2011 Veroljub PANIĆ 10/10/1963 Kruševac     28343/12 12/09/2011 Dragan LAZAREVIĆ 14/05/1965 Kruševac