CASE OF LUČIĆ v. SERBIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Ján Šikuta
4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Karan. 5. He was employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”). 6. Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicant brought three separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions. 7. On 31 August 2007 and 19 September 2007, respectively, the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Užice rendered decisions ordering the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums. Both decisions became final on 9 October 2007. 8. Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from these decisions, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 15 May 2009 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect. 9. On 23 July 2009 the Municipal Court in Užice rendered a decision in the third set of civil proceedings brought by the applicant ordering the debtor to pay him an additional sum from the outstanding debt. On 2 September 2009 this decision became final. 10. Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 29 September 2009 the Municipal Court in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect. 11. On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated. 12. The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above-mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration. 13. On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicant’s claim. 14. The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing. 15. The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002. 16. On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations. 17. Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company. 18. On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.