THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
(Applications nos. 43815/17 and 15 others - see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 August 2019
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stevanović and Others v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Georgios A. Serghides, President,
 Branko Lubarda,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in sixteen applications (nos. 43815/17, 43819/17, 46335/17, 46382/17, 58825/17, 72892/17, 77141/17, 77875/17, 77876/17, 77879/17, 77882/17, 78142/17, 79575/17, 83186/17, 5791/18 and 6256/18) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by sixteen Serbian nationals. The applicants’ personal details are set out in the appendix to this judgment. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms T. Stojiljković, a lawyer practising in Leskovac. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plavšić. 3. On 25 September 2018 notice of the applications was given to the Government pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court. 4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants were employed by the following socially/State-owned companies: Vučje, Inkol, Elektrouniverzal and Graditelj (hereinafter – “the debtors”). 6. They obtained final court decisions ordering the debtors to pay them their salaries plus default interest and costs and expenses. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appendix to this judgment. 7. Between April 2009 and September 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtors. Since all the enforcement proceedings against the debtors were stayed by operation of law (see paragraph 12 below), the applicants reported their claims based on the court decisions mentioned in paragraph 6 above to the liquidator. On different dates the liquidator accepted their claims in the amount of the principal debt plus default interest accrued until the day of institution of the insolvency proceedings against the debtors, as provided for by domestic law (see paragraph 12 below). 8. On different dates (see the appendix to this judgment) the Commercial Court of Appeal found that the applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and awarded them between 100 and 400 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage. No award was made in respect of the fifth and the seventh applicant. That court also ordered the Leskovac Commercial Court to speed up the insolvency proceedings against the debtors. 9. All the applicants complained to the Supreme Court of Cassation about the amount of the awards. The Supreme Court of Cassation rejected their appeals. 10. On different dates in 2017 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and ordered that the claims accepted by the liquidator (see paragraph 7 above) be paid directly by the State within four months. Furthermore, it held that the sums awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage were reasonable. 11. Soon thereafter, those claims were indeed paid by the State. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
12. Pursuant to sections 85 and 93 of the Insolvency Act 2009 (Zakon o stečaju; Official Gazette nos. 104/09, 99/11, 71/12, 83/14, 113/17 and 44/18), as of the day of institution of insolvency proceedings against a company (both private and socially/State-owned), any ongoing enforcement proceedings against the company are stayed and default interest on any outstanding debt of the company cease to accrue. The Insolvency Act 2004 (Zakon o stečajnom postupku; Official Gazette nos. 84/04 and 85/05), which was in force until the entry into force of the Insolvency Act 2009, contained almost identical provisions. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
13. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
14. The applicants maintained that the final court decisions mentioned in paragraph 6 above had not been fully enforced. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, in the relevant part, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. ...”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

15. The Government submitted that the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, since the judgments in issue had been enforced, domestic courts had acknowledged the alleged breach and awarded appropriate and sufficient redress. In view of a dire economic situation in Serbia, it could not be expected of domestic courts to award higher amounts in this regard. The Government added that in Serbia, at the relevant time (in 2016), the average salary was less than EUR 400 and the average pension was less than EUR 200. 16. The applicants disagreed. Notably, they complained because they had not been paid default interest after institution of insolvency proceedings against the debtors. They also argued that the redress awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage was not sufficient.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation