VIOLETKA Ivanova and Marina Vasilev v. Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 27. February brought, and 20. Marta 2025. published a decision in the caseVIOLETKA Ivanova and Marina Vasilev v. Serbia, no. 16240/23 and 19610/23.

The decision was made by the three-member committee.

Applicant were in the application to complaine To a violation of the right to trialwithin a reasonable timereferred to in Article 6. paragraph 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the property rights referred to in Article 1. protocol number 1 with the Convention, due to the non-execution of domestic decisions adopted against social / state-owned companies.

Due to the similarity of the subject subject, the court is the application united.

The government presented the claims thatThe applicants acquired the debtor's company 2021., in accordance with the pre-prepared reorganization plan, adopted by the company, which accepted most of its creditors and approved the competent domestic court. The government also added that the nominal value of shares that acquired applicants comply with the amount of their receivables towards the company, and that domestic decisions in favor of the applicant were conducted.

Applicant The representations did not disputee That fact.

After examining the circumstances of the case, the Court stated that 3. March 2021. The competent court approved a pre-prepared reorganization plan, which envisages the conversion of all cash claims towards the borrower and that they are21. Octoberthe same The applicants of the debtor's business were issued in accordance with the mentioned plan.

Given that the applicants did not submit the information that the final domestic decisions were made before the government was notified, which represents the essence of the representations, the Court found that such applicants' behavior is contrary to the purpose of the right to a single petition. Courthas rated yeahwas supposed tothe applicantsstated the fact,and that, in line with the domestic law, The plan was fully published and applicants and all other creditors, and that the approach of the plan was enabled.

The Court also pointed out that the lawyers must understand that the duty of the court examines the allegations of violations of human rights, they must also show high professional caution and meaningful cooperation in working with the Court, saving it from unfounded complaints. Therefore, lawyers, before initiating proceedings, must be thoroughly inquiring about all the details of the case, carefully adhering to all relevant rules of procedure, and they are also obliged to encourage their customers to do the same. In violation, intentional or negligence of the court resources, can jeopardize the credibility of lawyers in the eyes of the court, and even if it occurs systematically, it can lead to the situation to ban the representation of the applicants.

Consequently, the Court decided to declare the applications inadmissible for misuse of the right to a single petition, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. st. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.