CASE OF RIĐIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
6. The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. All applicants were employed by Rudnik bakra Majdanpek, a copper mining company based in Majdanpek (“the debtor”). 8. Between 2001 and 2005 they all instituted separate civil suits against the debtor, seeking pecuniary redress on various grounds. 9. On 10 June 2002 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him: (a) the salary arrears due between 31 May 1998 and 20 July 2001, plus statutory interest; (b) the pension, disability, health and other insurance contributions due for the same period; and (c) his legal costs. 10. On 2 October 2002 the judgment became final. 11. Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under (b) above, on 17 December 2002 the first applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court. 12. On 10 January 2003 the court accepted the first applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. On 21 January 2004 the same court issued an additional order to the same effect. 13. On 18 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 14. In May 2011, following their resumption, the first applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 15. On 25 April 2002 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him: (a) the salary arrears due between 1 November 1999 and 1 August 2000, plus statutory interest; (b) the pension, disability, health and other insurance contributions due for the same period; and (c) his legal costs. 16. On 19 June 2002 the judgment became final. 17. Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under (b) above, on 17 December 2002 the second applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court. 18. On 10 January 2003 the court accepted the second applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. 19. On 18 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 20. In July 2011, following their resumption, the second applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 21. On 8 February 2001 and 7 February 2002, the latter following a brief reopening of the proceedings, the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the third applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due between 1 April 1998 and 28 February 2000, plus statutory interest, as well as his legal costs. 22. By 12 April 2002 these judgments became final. 23. On unspecified dates, the third applicant filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgments before the Majdanpek Municipal Court. 24. On 19 June 2001 and 13 November 2003, respectively, the court accepted the third applicant’s requests and issued the enforcement orders. 25. On 20 February 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 26. In May 2011, following their resumption, the third applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 27. On 23 October 2001 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due between 1 December 1998 and 31 December 1999, plus statutory interest, as well as his legal costs. 28. By 22 November 2001 this judgment became final. 29. On 27 February 2002 the fourth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court. 30. On the same date the court accepted the fourth applicant’s request and issued the enforcement order. 31. On 20 February 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 32. In May 2011, following their resumption, the fourth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 33. On 11 September 2002 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fifth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due between 19 December 1997 and 28 March 2002, plus statutory interest, as well as his legal costs. 34. By 24 October 2002 this judgment became final. 35. On 30 October 2002 the fifth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court. 36. On 1 November 2002 the court accepted the fifth applicant’s request and issued the enforcement order. 37. In the course of 2003 and 2004, the debtor covered a part of the fifth applicant’s claims. 38. On 3 February 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 39. In June 2011, following their resumption, the fifth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 40. On 7 December 2005 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the sixth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered due to a labour-related injury, plus statutory interest, and his legal costs. 41. By 31 March 2006 this judgment became final. 42. On 1 June 2006 the sixth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court. 43. On 14 June 2006 the court accepted the sixth applicant’s request and issued the enforcement order. 44. On 30 August 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 45. In May 2011, following their resumption, the sixth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour. 46. None of the applicants ever filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court, seeking compensation for any non-pecuniary damages suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings in question. 47. As of April 2014, the debtor appeared to be a company predominantly comprised of State or socially owned capital and was still in the process of being restructured.