Samo u ovom predmetu Srbija treba da plati 38.000 E troskova i stete plus oko 1.5M$ tuziocima!
_____ CASE OF KIN-STIB AND MAJKIĆ v. SERBIA (Application no. 12312/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 April 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 12312/05) against the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro lodged with the Court, under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), by Kin-Stib, a limited liability company based in the Democratic Republic of Congo (hereinafter “the first applicant”), and, at that time, a national of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, Mr Milorad Majkić (hereinafter “the second applicant”), on 6 April 2005. 2. Both applicants were represented by Mr C. Leon, a lawyer practising in Vienna, Austria. The Government of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and, subsequently, the Government of Serbia (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić. 3. The applicants alleged that they had suffered violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, as well as a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, stemming from the partial non-enforcement of an arbitration award rendered in their favour. 4. On 4 May 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. 5. As of 3 June 2006, following the Montenegrin declaration of independence, Serbia remained the sole respondent in the proceedings before the Court. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A. Relevant background to the applicants' case 7. On 12 October 1989 the first applicant concluded a joint venture agreement with the “Hotel Intercontinental Belgrade”, concerning the setting-up and joint operation of a casino on its premises. 8. At that time, the said hotel was owned by “Generalexport” (hereinafter “Genex”), a major “socially-owned company” (see paragraph 70 below) with an annual turnover in excess of seven billion US Dollars (“USD”). 9. Article 12 of the joint venture agreement provided that the first applicant was entitled to collect 80% of any earnings made as part of the joint operation of the casino in question, whilst Genex had the right to collect the remaining 20% thereof. Article 19 of the agreement, however, stated that Genex would, in any event, be entitled as guaranteed minimum earnings to a payment of no less than USD 500.000 annually by the first applicant. 10. The casino opened in October 1990. By 1993, however, it closed due to various financial difficulties, and a number of disputes between the parties followed. CONTINUED: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=SERBIA&sessionid=52056010&skin=hudoc-en
_______________________________________________ SIM mailing list SIM@antic.org http://lists.antic.org/mailman/listinfo/sim
