CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 janvier 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE13162EA { width:134.76pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34290/18 Sava BOSIOKOVIĆ against Serbia (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20   January 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Jovan Ilievski, President,   Gilberto Felici,   Diana Sârcu, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6   July 2018, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government. Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr M. Petković, a lawyer practising in Bor. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company were communicated to the Serbian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints about the non-enforcement of the domestic decision in his favour are inadmissible since he failed to use the remedies provided for by the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time Act ( Zakon o zaštiti prava na suđenje u razumnom roku , published in Official Gazette no. 40/2015). The Court held in Stanković v. Serbia ((dec.), no.   41285/19, § 22, 3 December 2019) that the applicant who had used the said remedies had lost her status as a “victim” within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention. The applicant in the present case has not explained why those remedies would have been inadequate or ineffective in his case. In view of the above, the Court finds that the present application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 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 10 February 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Jovan Ilievski   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings 34290/18 06/07/2018 Sava BOSIOKOVIĆ 1944 Bor Court of First Instance, 19/02/2014   21/01/2015   pending More than 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)