CASE OF NIKOLIĆ-KRSTIĆ 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)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Leskovac. 6. On 5 September 1994 the Leskovac Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) ordered the Leskovac branch of the “JIK” Bank (“the debtor”), a predominantly socially-owned bank, to reinstate the applicant and to pay her outstanding salary and all work-related benefits for the period following her unlawful dismissal. That judgment became final on 1 September 1995. 7. On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment. On 17 October 1995 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rešenje o izvršenju). 8. On 19 December 1995 the applicant was reinstated. However, as the debtor refused to pay the outstanding judgment debt, the applicant, on an unspecified date, filed a new request for the enforcement. 9. On 18 November 1997, on the basis of a financial expert’s analysis, the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by debtor account transfer in the total amount of 72,076.55 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) in respect of salary arrears and all work-related benefits, for the period from 1 May 1992 until 31 December 1995, together with statutory interest and YUM 550 for legal costs. 10. On 29 September 1999 the applicant requested the court to change the means of enforcement as it appeared that there were no funds in the debtor’s account. On 1 October 1999 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable assets. 11. On 26 July 2000 the applicant obtained a pledge (zalog) over certain movable assets which were seized from the debtor (two vehicles and some technical equipment). 12. On the same day, the Belgrade Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court”) instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor. 13. On 8 May 2001 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued in view of the pending liquidation proceedings. On 22 May 2001 the applicant reported her claims to the liquidation council (likvidaciono veće). 14. On several occasions thereafter, the applicant petitioned the court to continue with the enforcement and to schedule a public auction for the sale of the pledged assets, arguing that their value was decreasing due to the passage of time and that she had to bear the maintenance costs. On 15 January 2002 she submitted the same request to the liquidation administrator (likvidacioni upravnik). 15. The Municipal Court held two hearings concerning the applicant’s requests, on 10 December 2003 and 30 October 2005, but it would appear that no decision was issued. 16. In the meantime, on 11 March 2004 the Commercial Court appointed the Agency for Deposits as a liquidation administrator. On 7 April 2005 the Commercial Court terminated the liquidation proceedings and opened bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. 17. On 18 November 2005 the Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s claims against the debtor (paragraph 13 above) and instructed her to initiate a new set of civil proceedings. On 16 May 2007 the Belgrade High Commercial Court (“the High Commercial Court”) upheld that decision. 18. The applicant did not initiate a new set of civil proceedings as instructed. 19. It would appear that bankruptcy proceedings are still pending and that the debtor is still predominantly socially-owned. 20. The relevant domestic law is set out in the Court’s judgment of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 et al., 15 January 2008.