CASE OF TEHNOGRADNJA DOO 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;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra
5. On 25 March 2004 the applicant company concluded a contract with Univerzal Banka AD (hereinafter “the bank”), a private institution based in Belgrade. Under the terms of this contract, the applicant company acquired a debt belonging to the bank resulting from a final court judgment of 28 December 1999. That judgment was rendered against a socially-owned company called Mehanizacija (hereinafter “the debtor company”) with its seat in Vladičin Han. On 29 August 2000, upon the bank’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and the debtor company subsequently paid a part of the judgment debt. 6. On 14 April 2005, upon the applicant company’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court again ordered the full enforcement of the judgment in question. 7. On 26 July 2005 the applicant company concluded a settlement with the debtor company, which was later annulled following an application by the debtor company by a decision of the Leskovac Commercial Court of 22 January 2009. That decision became final on 3 March 2010. 8. On 24 December 2001 the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant company specified amounts. 9. On 2 February 2005, upon the applicant company’s application to that effect, the Leskovac Commercial Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment. 10. On 1 March 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company. As a result, all of the other ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed. 11. The applicant company duly reported its claims based on the above-mentioned judgments. 12. On 15 October 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court recognised a part of the applicant company’s claims and instructed the applicant company to initiate civil proceedings in respect of the remainder. 13. On 29 May 2012 the Leskovac Commercial Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant company and dismissed the remainder of its claims. That decision was upheld by the Commercial Appeals Court on 25 October 2013. The domestic courts found that the contract which the applicant company had concluded with the bank (see paragraph 5 above) entitled it only to the recovery of the amount paid for the transfer of the debt owed to the bank in question, not the judgment debt itself. 14. The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.