THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 51112\/16
\nPTP SPIN KOMERC DOO
\nagainst Serbia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26\u00a0February 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Pere Pastor Vilanova, President,
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 2016,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, PTP Spin Komerc DOO, is a limited liability company with its seat in Negotin. It was represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0M.\u00a0Zdravkovi\u0107, a lawyer practising in Negotin.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The Serbian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Plav\u0161i\u0107.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 September 2003 the Negotin Municipal Court rendered its judgment ordering a certain S.S. to pay to the applicant company 17,226\u00a0euros. On 25 October 2003 this judgment became final.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 February 2004 Vlasotince Municipal Court issued an enforcement order.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 November 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and ordered that the enforcement proceedings be expedited. The Constitutional Court did not award the applicant any compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, as the applicant had failed to claim it.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 January 2015 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued since it was established that the debtor had no property left to cover the judgment debt.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant again lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court. On 6\u00a0May 2016 the Constitutional Court rejected it.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINT<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant company complains under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce the final court decision rendered in its favour.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged a breach of his rights under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations …, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant company could no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for the reason that the Constitutional Court had acknowledged the alleged breach.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant disagreed.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has held on numerous occasions that the right to court includes a right to have a court decision enforced without undue delay (see EVT COMPANY v. Serbia [committee], no. 8024\/08, \u00a7 32, 13\u00a0January 2015 and the authorities cited therein). However, State responsibility for non-enforcement of a judgment against a private person, like in the present case, extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures. Once the enforcement procedures were closed by a court in accordance with the national legislation, the responsibility of the State ended. In other words, whilst the State can be held responsible for any and all procedural errors or delays imputable to the domestic authorities, a failure to enforce a judgment against a private person because the debtor has no means to satisfy the debt cannot be held against the State (ibid, \u00a7 32).<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the enforcement proceedings lasted for almost eleven years, which is excessive. However, the Constitutional Court expressly acknowledged a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see paragraph 6 above). Since the applicant failed to claim compensation before the Constitutional Court, the acknowledgment of a violation was, in itself, appropriate and sufficient redress for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see\u00a0Kahriman v.\u00a0Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4867\/16, \u00a7 9, 17\u00a0October\u00a02017, and the authorities cited therein).<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0In these circumstances, the applicant can no longer claim to be a \u201cvictim\u201d within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,<\/p>\n
Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 March 2019.<\/p>\n
Fato\u015f Arac\u0131 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pere Pastor Vilanova
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n