CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 décembre 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 } .s93654821 { width:16.99pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9D8C29BD { width:190.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20904/13 Živko UZELAC against Serbia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   December 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 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, Mr Živko Uzelac, is a Serbian national, who was born in   1955 and lives in Grabovci. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former Agent, Ms V. Rodić, who was recently substituted by their current Agent, Ms N. Plavšić. On 8 October 2003 and 11 May 2007 the Ruma Municipal Court, in two separate judgments, ordered a socially-owned company DP “Nova Guma”   AD (hereinafter “the debtor”), to pay the applicant a specified amount on account of salary arrears. On 17 June 2010 the Sremska Mitrovica Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor and the applicant duly reported his claims based on the said judgment. On 6 August 2010 the Commercial Court recognized the applicant’s claims. 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 judgments remain 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 his 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 5   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 12 January 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Pere Pastor Vilanova Deputy Registrar   President