CASE OF MAKSOVIĆ 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)
Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kraljevo. 6. Between June 2003 and December 2004 the applicant, as an entrepreneur, was providing heating installation services to AD Fabrika za proizvodnju konfekcije i trikotaže Raška, a socially-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor company”). 7. On 2 December 2010 the Kraljevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company (St. 31/2010). 8. The applicant duly submitted his claim. 9. On 15 March 2011 the Commercial Court rejected his claim and instructed him to initiate a regular civil suit and request determination of his claim. The applicant lodged a separate civil claim. 10. On 1 December 2011 the Commercial Court ruled in favour of the applicant by recognizing his claim and ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant the costs of the civil proceedings. 11. On an unspecified date thereafter, the said judgment having become final, was acknowledged within the insolvency proceedings. 12. On 22 July 2013 the Commercial Court issued a decision ordering payment of approximately 10 % of the total debt to the applicant. The applicant received this payment on an unspecified date. 13. The debtor company was ultimately struck from the relevant public register on 9 July 2014. 14. On 16 December 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining against the Commercial Court’s decision of 22 July 2013 and that his right to work and right to compensation for work and providing services were infringed, because he received only 10 % of the total debt. He asked further the Constitutional Court to order the payment of the rest of the debt. 15. On 2 March 2015 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that it is not vested with the power to order such a payment. That decision was delivered to the applicant after 24 April 2015.