CASE OF POP-ILIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra
6. On 13 April 2006 the Vlasotince Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants. The respondent, AD Retex, a privately owned company as of 2003, was ordered to: (a) reinstate them to their former jobs; (b) pay their salary arrears; (c) pay the relevant social insurance contributions due for the same period; and (d) pay the their legal costs. 7. By 11 July 2007 this judgment, as amended on appeal in respect of the legal costs, became final. 8. On 27 July 2007 the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the said judgment. 9. On 6 August 2007 the Vlasotince Municipal Court accepted the applicants’ request and issued an enforcement order. 10. On 3 December 2007 the Leskovac District Court upheld this decision on appeal. 11. In January 2008 the Vlasotince Municipal Court carried out an assessment of the debtor’s movable assets. 12. On 21 April 2008, in response to a third party’s request, the Vlasotince Municipal Court excluded certain movable assets from the enforcement proceedings. 13. On 26 May 2008 the Vlasotince Municipal Court obtained an additional report regarding the value of the debtor’s movable assets. 14. On 22 April 2010 the Leskovac High Court ordered the re-examination of the third party’s exclusion request lodged in respect of the debtor’s assets. 15. On 21 January 2011 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of AD Retex and on 3 June 2011 the applicants’ claims were confirmed in their entirety. The applicants themselves were classified as third-class creditors. 16. On 16 June 2011 the debtor’s assets were sold as part of the insolvency proceedings. 17. On 12 June 2013 the enforcement proceedings were stayed. 18. The insolvency proceedings before the Leskovac Commercial Court are still pending, and the applicants have yet to be paid apparently as a consequence of two related civil suits brought by other creditors. 19. On 26 April 2010 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, maintaining that they had suffered a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and a violation of their property rights. In terms of redress, the applicants sought recognition of these violations, an order from the Constitutional Court for the expedition of the impugned enforcement proceedings, and the “removal of all adverse consequences” suffered in this connection (including through the payment of their outstanding pecuniary claims). 20. On 4 April 2012 the applicants noted the adoption of the amendments to the Constitutional Court Act, and specified their compensation claims accordingly. Specifically, on account of the pecuniary damage suffered, the applicants requested the respective amounts awarded to them by the final judgment in question, whilst as regards the nonpecuniary damage sustained they claimed 2,200 euros each (see paragraphs 27-30 below). 21. On 27 March 2013 the Constitutional Court found, in the operative part of its ruling (u izreci), that the applicants had indeed suffered a violation of their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as well as a violation of their property rights, but rejected the compensation claims regarding the non-pecuniary damages sought by the applicants. The Constitutional Court, lastly, ordered that the impugned enforcement proceedings be terminated in accordance with the applicable legislation (see paragraph 31 below). 22. In its reasoning the Constitutional Court established that the courts in question had not acted promptly between 27 July 2007 and 21 January 2011. Concerning the compensation issue, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicants’ pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage claims had been filed out of time. In so doing, it merely referred to Articles 36 § 1 (2) and 85 § 3 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended in 2011, and Article 40 § 1 of the amendments themselves (see paragraphs 27-30below).