CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10533/25 Stanislav MIHAJLOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 10 March 2025 communicated on 9 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns insolvency proceedings ( stečajni postupak ) instituted against a company, JP Agrar Surčin, based in Serbia (“the debtor company”), in which the applicant is a creditor. The applicant, a former employee of the debtor company, obtained two final judgments in 2015 and 2020 in labour related civil proceedings, ordering the debtor company to pay him certain sums. Those judgments have not been enforced. On 8 December 2021 insolvency proceedings were opened against the debtor company. The applicant appealed against the decision opening the proceedings, arguing that the debtor company had been established by the local public administration and was predominantly financed from public funds and, under Serbian law, could not be subjected to insolvency proceedings. On 9 March 2022 the Appellate Commercial Court dismissed his appeal, finding that the debtor company was predominantly financed by private capital and could therefore be subjected to insolvency proceedings. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court also ruled against the applicant. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts’ decisions to open insolvency proceedings against the debtor company were arbitrary. In addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complains that the opening of insolvency proceedings effectively deprived him of the possibility of enforcing the judgments in his favour, since the debtor company has no assets from which his claims could be satisfied. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, did the proceedings in which insolvency was initiated against the debtor company concern the “determination of civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of that provision?   If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to reasons given by the Appellate Commercial Court, was the impugned decision sufficiently reasoned and free from arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, §§ 24 and 27 in fine , 9 April 2013; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no.   22251/08, §§   61-65, ECHR 2015; and Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, § 170, 15   November   2007)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, did the decision to initiate insolvency proceedings against the debtor company constitute an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?