Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14738/16
Bahrija MUMINOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 November 2018 as a Chamber composed of:
GannaYudkivska, President,
FarisVehabović,
EgidijusKūris,
Iulia AntoanellaMotoc,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak,
PéterPaczolay, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Their representatives are indicated in that list. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms S. Malešić.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The case of Ms BahrijaMuminović
3. From July 2003 until August 2006 the applicant worked as a lawyer at Krivajad.o.o. Zavidovići (hereinafter “Krivaja”), a limited liability company owned by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”), the company was one of the leading wood manufacturers. It employed thousands of people. Like all other large companies in the SFRY, it was socially owned (the notion of social ownership has been described in Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 12, ECHR 2014). Since the dissolution of the SFRY in 1991-92 and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992-95, Krivaja has been facing financial difficulties.
4. Like other employees, the applicant received a reduced salary until May 2004 and no salary thereafter. She therefore initiated two sets of civil proceedings against the company.
5. By a judgment of the Zavidovići Municipal Court of 12 January 2006, which became final on 3 November 2006, the company was ordered to pay the applicant, within fifteen days, 23,531 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in salary arrears, together with default interest at the statutory rate, and BAM 1,216 in costs and expenses. The same court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) in respect of that judgment on 12 December 2006. It became final on 7 March 2007.
6. Soon thereafter the applicant received BAM 5,045 in that connection.
7. Unable to pay its debts, on 27 June 2007 Krivaja presented a winding-up petition. The hearing was adjourned at the request of the companyon eight occasions because negotiations with its creditors were underway.
8. By a judgment of the Zavidovići Municipal Court of 4 October 2007, which became final on 17 February 2009, the company was ordered to pay the applicant, within fifteen days, BAM 10,330 in salary arrears, together with default interest at the statutory rate, and BAM 120 in costs and expenses. It was also ordered to pay statutory contributions to social security funds for the benefit of the applicant in the amount of BAM 27,103. In the course of those proceedings, Krivaja argued that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be held responsible in the case rather than the company itself, because it had started charging State-owned companies for wood harvested in State-owned forests. The domestic courts rejected that argument.
9. In September 2008 Krivaja and Ferimpexd.o.o. Zavidovići, a private company, set up a joint-venture company. Soon thereafter Krivaja withdrew its winding-up petition of 27 June 2007 (see paragraph 7 above).
10. On 22 July 2009 the Zavidovići Municipal Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 4 October 2007 and consolidated the two sets of enforcement proceedings pursued by the applicant.
11. In September 2009 the Zavidovići Municipal Court held an auction for the sale of an item belonging to Krivaja estimated to beworth BAM 29,000. An order imposing a charge on that item (pljenidbenipopis) had been issued in favour of the applicant in January 2008. Charging orders had previously been issued in favour of twenty-two other creditors. It would appear that the item was not sold at the auction.
12. In March 2010 the Zavidovići Municipal Court placed a charging order in favour of the applicant on another item belonging to the company estimated to be worth BAM 100,000. It would appear that an auction for the sale of that item was never scheduled.
13. In June 2011 the joint-venture agreement mentioned in paragraph 9 above was cancelled because fewer than 10% of Krivaja’s employees had refused to withdraw their requests for the enforcement of judgments against Krivaja, as stipulated in that agreement.
14. At the request of a number of creditors (excluding the applicant), on 11 July 2011 the Zenica Municipal Court made a winding-up order against Krivaja. All enforcement proceedings against the company were stayed by operation of law. The applicant registered claims with the liquidator in the amount of BAM 49,664 (including default interest until 10 November 2011) and the BAM 27,103 payable to social security funds for her benefit.
15. On 18 April 2012 the Development Bank, a bank wholly owned by the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, loaned Krivaja BAM 6,000,000 as a measure against unemployment (in return Krivaja undertook to keep at least 800 of its employees).
16. In September 2014 all tangible property belonging to Krivaja, worth an estimated value of BAM 8,700,000, was sold to a consortium of four private companies. The four private companies merged into a new company, Krivaja-Mobil d.o.o. Zavidovići, in October 2014. Pursuant to that contract, Krivaja-Mobil d.o.o. Zavidovići took over the debt of Krivaja (see paragraph 15 above) and paid the outstanding amount of BAM 1,850,000 to Krivaja in cash.
17. In September 2014 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also undertook to pay statutory social security contributions for the benefit of all former and current employees of Krivaja, including the applicant.
18. The applicant retired in September 2015. The Government submitted that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina would pay all contributions for her benefit in 2018, which would lead to a small rise in her State pension.
19. Pursuant to the applicant’s complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 12 January 2006 and 4 October 2007, on 8 December 2015 the Constitutional Court found no breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case.
20. Since several sets of civil proceedings between Krivaja and its debtors and creditors are pending, the winding-up proceedings against that companyhave not yet been terminated.
2. The case of Mr NedžadBradarić
21. Until May 2001 the applicant worked at Tvornicatransportnihuređajad.d. Tuzla (hereinafter “TTU”), a public limited company in which the Tuzla Canton holds 67% of the shares. The company was one of the leading manufacturers of industrial vehicles and agricultural machinery in the SFRY. Like all other large companies in the SFRY, it was socially owned. Since the dissolution of the SFRY in 1991-92 and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992-95, it has been facing financial difficulties.
22. The employees of the company received no remuneration in the period 1998 to 2000. They therefore initiated civil proceedings against the company. By a judgment of the Tuzla Municipal Court of 17 July 2001, which became final on 17 August 2001, the company was ordered to pay, within fifteen days, salary arrears to 428 of its employees (including BAM 3,078 to the applicant), together with default interest at the statutory rate, and BAM 18,200 in total in costs and expenses. On 3 December 2002 the Tuzla Municipal Court issued a writ of execution, which became final on 26 December 2002.
23. The company’s bank accounts have been closed since 2004. It would appear, however, that TTU has continued to operate through the accounts of another company (ITT – Inženjeringzatransportnutehnikud.o.o. Tuzla).
24. At the request of the tax authorities, in 2010 the Tuzla Municipal Court placed a charging order on all the movable property of TTU and in 2011 a charging order on all its immovable property (its tax debt was at that time almost BAM 10,000,000; in late 2015 it amounted to more than BAM 22,000,000).
25. In October 2012 the applicant requested that the judgment of 17 July 2001 be enforced against the movable property of TTU. On 9 November 2012 the Tuzla Municipal Court granted that request and on 30 September 2014 placed a charging order on that property in his favour.
26. In September 2013 the applicant requested that the judgment at issue be enforced against the immovable property of the company. On 26 December 2014 the Tuzla Municipal Court granted the request and on 6 January 2015 placed a charging order on that property in his favour.
27. Pursuant to the applicant’s complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 17 July 2001, on 7 October 2014 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention, ordered the Tuzla Municipal Court to finalise the enforcement proceedings without further delay and awarded the applicant BAM 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. That sum was paid to the applicant on an unknown date.
28. On 20 January 2015 the Tuzla Canton decided to try some debt relief measures. Soon thereafter it cancelled its decision because negotiations with the tax authorities and the social security funds had failed.
29. On 5 August 2015 the Tuzla Canton (the majority shareholder) and creditors, including the applicant, presented winding-up petitions against TTU. On 5 November 2015 the Tuzla Municipal Court made a winding-up order. All enforcement proceedings against TTU were stayed by operation of law. The applicant registered a claim with the liquidator in the amount of approximately BAM 9,000 (including default interest until 15 November 2015).
30. In December 2016 business premises belonging to TTU were sold to another company for around BAM 6,000,000. Three-quarters of that money was used to pay statutory social security contributions for the benefit of the former employees of TTU.
31. It would appear that the winding-up proceedings are still pending.
3. The case of Mr Milenko Iveljić
32. Until August 2010 the applicant worked at TTU (see paragraph 21 above). As he was injured during the 1992-95 war, in March 2001 the social security authorities ordered TTU to reallocate him to a post which would correspond to his disability and to pay him statutory sick pay in the meantime. It would appear that more than 100 employees of TTU were in a similar situation at that time.
33. Like other employees of TTU, the applicant did not receive full remuneration. He therefore initiated four sets of civil proceedings against the company.
34. By judgments of 17 July 2001, 15 September 2006, 3 October 2008 and 10 February 2015, which became final on 17 August 2001, 3 October 2006, 15 April 2009 and 7 March 2015 respectively, the Tuzla Municipal Court ordered TTU to pay the applicant, within fifteen days, different amounts, together with default interest at the statutory rate, and BAM 8,890 in costs and expenses in total. The company was also ordered to pay statutory contributions for the benefit of the applicant to social security funds in the amount of BAM 18,658. On 16 December 2002, 3 November 2006, 24 August 2009 and 14 April 2015 the same court issued writs of execution. They became final on 5 February 2003, 12 November 2006, 2 July 2014 and 8 October 2015 respectively.
35. The company’s bank accounts have been closed since 2004. It would appear, however, that TTU has continued to operate through the accounts of ITT (see paragraph 23 above).
36. At the request of the tax authorities, in 2010 the Tuzla Municipal Court placed a charging order on all the movable property of TTU and in 2011 a charging order on all its immovable property (its tax debt was at that time almost BAM 10,000,000; in late 2015 it amounted to more than BAM 22,000,000).
37. Pursuant to the applicant’s complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 17 July 2001, 15 September 2006 and 3 October 2008, on 27 June 2012, 14 March 2012 and on 6 November 2014, respectively, the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention, ordered the Tuzla Municipal Court to finalise the enforcement proceedings without further delay and awarded the applicant BAM 5,700 in total in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The amount awarded was paid to the applicant on an unknown date.
38. On different dates between 2013 and 2015 the applicant requested that all four judgments in his favour be enforced against the immovable property of the company. The Tuzla Municipal Court granted those requests; on different dates between 2014 and 2015 it placed charging orders on all the immovable property of the company in his favour.
39. On 20 January 2015 the Tuzla Canton decided to try some debt relief measures. Soon thereafter it cancelled its decision because negotiations with the tax authorities and the social security funds had failed.
40. On 5 August 2015 the Tuzla Canton (the majority shareholder) and creditors, including the applicant, presented winding-up petitions against TTU. On 5 November 2015 the Tuzla Municipal Court made a winding-up order. All enforcement proceedings against TTU were stayed by operation of law. The applicant registered a claim with the liquidator in the amount of BAM 45,426 (including default interest until 15 November 2015).
41. In December 2016 business premises belonging to TTU were sold to another company for around BAM 6,000,000. Three-quarters of that money was used to pay statutory social security contributions for the benefit of the former employees of TTU.
42. It would appear that the winding-up proceedings are still pending.
4. The case of Mr BećirZerem
43. From December 2003 until April 2005 the applicant worked at J.P. Sigurnostp.o. Mostar (hereinafter “Sigurnost”), a statutory company (javnopreduzeće) created by the City of Mostar in 1994 to provide security guard services to public institutions in the city. According to its articles of association and the companies register, Sigurnost was liable for its debts with its entire property (pursuant to the secondary legislation in force at the time of registration[2], the name of the company, therefore, contained p.o. – potpunaodgovornost); on the other hand, the City of Mostar, as the owner of Sigurnost, was liable for the debts of Sigurnost in the amount invested in the company (a limited liability).
44. Like other employees of Sigurnost, the applicant did not receive full remuneration. He therefore initiated civil proceedings against the company.
45. The company’s bank accounts were closed in 2007 as a result of its lack of liquid assets.
46. In March 2009 Sigurnost presented a winding-up petition.
47. By a judgment of the Mostar Municipal Court of 5 May 2009, which became final on 21 May 2009, Sigurnost was ordered to pay the applicant, within fifteen days, BAM 10,035 in salary arrears, together with default interest at the statutory rate, and BAM 4,103 in costs and expenses. It was further ordered to pay statutory contributions for the benefit of the applicant to social security funds in the amount of BAM 1,243.
48. On 31 August 2009 the Mostar Municipal Court made a winding-up order. Shortly thereafter, the applicant registered claims with the liquidator. It would appear from the minutes of the meeting of the company’s creditors of 2 November 2009 that the debts of Sigurnost amounted to BAM 602,408. It would appear from the minutes of the meeting of the company’s creditors of 28 December 2012 that the City of Mostar, rather thanSigurnost, was the owner of the property allocated to that company. Sigurnost thus only had claims in the total amount of BAM 55,208. Once the preferential debts of the company had been paid (salaries and social security contributions in respect of its current employees), the residual sum was insufficient to cover the expenses of the winding up amounting to BAM 23,105. The liquidator consequently applied for the dissolution of the company. The applicant objected, claiming that the City of Mostar, the owner of Sigurnost, was liable for its debts.
49. On 3 June 2014 the Mostar Municipal Court dissolved the company. It did not address the applicant’s argument about the liability of the City of Mostar. The decision was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 46/14 of 11 June 2014. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 9 December 2014 the Mostar Cantonal Court upheld the decision of 3 June 2014. It considered that since the corporate veil had not been lifted in accordance with section 6 of the Companies Act 1999 (see paragraph 53 below), the City of Mostar had limited liability for the debts of Sigurnost – that is, up to the amount invested in that company.
50. Sigurnost was struck off from the companies register on 30 January 2015.
51. On 11 January 2017 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint about the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 5 May 2009 manifestly ill-founded.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
52. The present applications concern State-owned companies (društvasavećinskimučešćemdržavnogkapitala) and statutory companies (javnapreduzeća) based in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1. State-owned companies
53. The Companies Act 2015[3] entered into force on 22 October 2015. It does not differentiate between private and State-owned companies as regards the administration of companies: the State and its emanations, such as the entities and cantons, have no more control over their companies than any other owner. The only difference is that stricter rules concerning conflicts of interest apply to the members of the administration of State-owned companies (see, in this regard, sections 247 and 252 of the Companies Act, the Public Appointments Act 2003[4] and the relevant secondary legislation[5]). In addition, regardless of whether a limited liability company (such as Krivaja) or a public limited company (such as TTU) is private or State-owned, the owner is only liable for debts of the company up to the amount invested in the company. The lifting of the corporate veil is justified, exceptionally, in the following circumstances: if one of the owners uses a company for achieving a personal goal that is not consistent with the goals of other owners and the company itself; treats the company’s assets as his or her own; uses the company to commit fraud or to avoid existing obligations; instigates a reduction of the company’s assets in his or her favour or in favour of third parties, or instigates the company to assume liabilities while he or she knows or ought to know that the company is not or will not be capable of fulfilling its liabilities (section 5). The old Companies Act 1999[6], in force from June 1999 until October 2015, contained similar provisions (notably, section 6 regulated the lifting of the corporate veil).
2. Statutory companies
54. The Statutory Companies Act 2005[7] has been in force since February 2005. It defines statutory companies as limited liability or public limited companies which provide public utilities, such as telecommunications, gas, electricity, water and so on, and any other company so defined by domestic law (sections 2 and 3). In principle, the owners of statutory companies have no more control over their companies than any other owner. Stricter rules concerning conflicts of interest, however, apply to statutory companies (see, notably, section 14). Moreover, the Act seeks to maintain market competition by requiring transparency and prohibiting anti-competitive conduct by statutory companies (section 2a). In accordance with section 51 of that Act, the Companies Act 1999 applied, mutatis mutandis, to statutory companies.
3. Enforcement proceedings
55. The Enforcement Procedure Act 2003[8], which entered into force on 19 July 2003, does not differentiate between privately owned companies, State-owned companies and statutory companies. A special regime applies only to public authorities, like the entity and the cantons (sections 79a, 117a, 138 and 187a).
56. Section 5 provides that all enforcement proceedings are urgent. When requesting a judgment to be enforced, the creditor must indicate the means of enforcement: a bank transfer, the sale of immovable or movable property and so on (section 8). Monetary claims, such as those in the present case, are enforced in chronological order (section 66). In other words, if a number of creditors request that their claims be enforced by means of a bank transfer, the bank will first pay the creditor whose writ of execution it received first (section 167). Similarly, if a creditor requests that his or her claim be enforced against the movable or immovable property of a debtor, he or she is issued with an order imposing a charge on the property in issue; in such cases the creditor with the oldest charging order will be paid first (sections 98, 124 and 134).
4. Winding-up proceedings
57. The Insolvency Act 2003[9], which entered into force on 1 July 2003, provides that State-owned and statutory companies are, just like privately owned companies, subject to winding-up proceedings. The manufacturers of weapons and military technology are the only exception: a winding-up order may only be made against such a company with the authorisation of the Ministry of Energy; if the Ministry refuses authorisation, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina becomes liable for the debts of the company. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other public authorities which are funded from the budget, are not subject to winding-up proceedings (see section 5 of that Act).
58. If a company or any of its creditors presents a winding-up petition, the competent court must establish whether the company in issue lacks liquid assets (section 6). If this is the case and the realisable assets of the company are sufficient to cover the expenses of the winding up, it will make a winding-up order (section 43).
59. At the request of a creditor with a court judgment against a company in his or her favour which has not been enforced for more than sixty days (counting from the date when the writ of execution became final), it is considered proven that the company lacks liquid assets and the court makes a winding-up order immediately (section 44).
60. Once such an order is made, all enforcement proceedings against the company in issue are stayed (section 58); all creditors must then register claims with the liquidator (section 110). The costs of the winding up, such as the liquidator’s fees, are paid first from the assets of the company (sections 40-41); employee salaries and all other job-related payments are paid next (section 33)[10]; followed by all other claims (section 32 of that Act). A special regime applies to secured creditors: if property securing a debt is sold, secured creditors are paid before any unsecured creditors from the purchase price (section 38). If there are more secured creditors in respect of the same property, they are paid in chronological order according to the date on which a charge on the property was imposed in their favour (section 142 of the Rights In Rem Act 2013[11]). Section 9 of the Insolvency Act 2003 provides that the winding-up proceedings are urgent.
5. Procedure for the lifting of the corporate veil
61. Whilst the Companies Act 1999 and the Companies Act 2015 set out the conditions for the lifting of the corporate veil (see paragraph 53 above), they do not contain any procedural rules in that regard. The Civil Procedure Act 2003[12] and particularly section 54 of that Act, which provides that an action may be brought to establish facts or rights (tužbazautvrđenje), are therefore applicable. The Civil Procedure Act 1998[13], which was in force until 2003, contained a similar provision (see section 172 of that Act).
COMPLAINTS
62. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments mentioned above. Notably, they maintained that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Tuzla Canton and the City of Mostar, being the sole or majority owners of Krivaja, TTU and Sigurnost, respectively, should pay the judgment debts of those companies. Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had not had an effective domestic remedy at their disposal which could force the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Tuzla Canton and the City of Mostar to do so.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
63. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Admissibility of the applications
1. As to the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
64. The Government claimed that the applicants had failed to exhaust the effective domestic remedies. Notably, they had failed to bring a civil action for the lifting of the corporate veil against the owners of the companies under consideration pursuant to the rules in that regard (see paragraph 53 above) taken in conjunction with section 54 of the Civil Procedure Act 2003 (see paragraph 61 above).
65. The applicants raised doubts as to the effectiveness of that domestic remedy and put emphasis on the embryonic nature of the domestic case-law in that area. They also pointed to the fact that the Constitutional Court had declared the cases of Ms Muminović, Mr Bradarić and Mr Iveljić admissible and had dealt with the merits of their cases.
66. The general principles concerning the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies were restated in Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014). In particular, States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system. Those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system. To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success. However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (ibid.).
67. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicants submitted that the owners of the companies under consideration (namely, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of Krivaja, the Tuzla Canton in respect of TTU, and the City of Mostar in respect of Sigurnost) should be held liable for the debts of the companies, including the judgment debts in their favour. They thus effectively invited the Court to lift the corporate veil in respect of those companies. In this regard, the applicants alleged, inter alia, that the authorities at issue had abused the corporate form and had misused the companies’ assets.
68. The Court further observes that under domestic law (see paragraph 61 above), a civil action may be brought for the lifting of the corporate veil in such circumstances. As already noted above, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to use it.
69. The Court is aware of the fact that one of the applicants, Mr Zerem, pursued this line of argument before the domestic courts (see paragraphs 48-49 above), but the winding-up proceedings against Sigurnost were simply not an appropriate forum. In accordance with domestic law, if creditors of a company wish to have the corporate veil of a company lifted, they must pursue civil proceedings against an owner of the company (see paragraph 61 above).
70. Lastly, with regard to the argument that the Government’s objection should be dismissed because the Constitutional Court had declared the cases of Ms Muminović, Mr Bradarić and Mr Iveljić admissible and had dealt with the merits of their cases, the Court notes that only their complaints about the length of proceedings were examined and declared admissible (see paragraphs 19, 27 and 37 above). The Constitutional Court did not address the question whether the judgment debts in the applicants’ favour should be attributed to, and thus paid by, the State which is the crux of the case before the Court.
71. This part of the case must thus be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. As to the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention
72. In the light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that the applicants actually had an effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of ProtocolNo. 1 to the Convention.
73. Their complaints under Article 13 must, therefore, be rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 December 2018.
Marialena Tsirli GannaYudkivska
Registrar President
______________
[1]. The convertible mark (BAM) uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro (EUR) that the German mark (DEM) has (BAM 1 = EUR0.51129).
[2]. Uredba o upisu u sudskiregistarpreduzećaidrugihpravnihlicakojaobavljajuprivrednudjelatnost, published in the Official Gazette of the SFRY no. 74/90, section 4.
[3]. Zakon o privrednimdruštvima, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 81/15.
[4]. Zakon o ministarskim, vladinimidrugimimenovanjimaFederacijeBosneiHercegovine, imposed by the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 12/03) and endorsed by the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the same Official Gazette nos. 34/03 and 65/13).
[5]. Uredba o vršenjuovlaštenja u privrednimdruštvimasaučešćemdržavnogkapitalaiznadležnostiFederacijeBosneiHercegovine, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 20/16.
[6]. Zakon o privrednimdruštvima, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 23/99, amendments published in the same Official Gazette nos. 45/00, 2/02, 6/02, 29/03, 68/05, 91/07, 84/08, 88/08, 7/09, 63/10 and 75/13.
[7]. Zakon o javnimpreduzećima u FederacijiBosneiHercegovine, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 8/05, amendments published in the same Official Gazette nos. 81/08, 22/09 and 109/12.
[8]. Zakon o izvršnompostupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 32/03, amendments published in the same Official Gazette nos.52/03, 33/06, 39/06, 39/09, 35/12, 46/16 and 36/17 (the Constitutional Court’s decision U 20/16 of 30 March 2017 declaring one of the provisions of that Act unconstitutional).
[9]. Zakon o stečajnom postupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 29/03, amendments published in the same Official Gazette nos. 32/04, 42/06, 4/17 and 52/18.
[10]. In June 2004 section 33 of the Insolvency Act 2003 was amended so that the employees were paid before all other creditors the salaries for the eight months preceding the winding-up order only. On 23 March 2016 the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared that amendment unconstitutional. It ceased to have effect in January 2017 when the ruling of the Constitutional Court was published (see the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 4/17).
[11]. Zakon o stvarnimpravima, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 66/13.
[12]. Zakon o parničnompostupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 53/03, amendments published in the same Official Gazette nos. 73/05, 19/06 and 98/15.
[13]. Zakon o parničnompostupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 42/98, amendments published in the same Official Gazette no. 3/99.
Appendix
| No. | Application no. | Lodged on | Applicant
Date of birth Place of residence Nationality |
Represented by |
| 1. | 14738/16 | 02/03/2016 | Bahrija MUMINOVIĆ
24/09/1950 Zavidovići Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Samir KARAHASANOVIĆ |
| 2. | 39857/17 | 24/05/2017 | Nedžad BRADARIĆ
12/08/1954 Tuzla Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Zajednička advokatska kancelarija Jezdić & Matuzović |
| 3. | 40158/17 | 30/05/2017 | Milenko IVELJIĆ
05/09/1957 Tuzla Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Zajednička advokatska kancelarija Jezdić & Matuzović |
| 4. | 52377/17 | 17/07/2017 | Bećir ZEREM
03/08/1979 Ostrožac Bosnia and Herzegovina |
Sadudin ZAKLAN |
Leave a Reply