SERBIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Aleksandar Ristić and Stefan Šilobad, Law Office Miroslav Stojanović
2.6 Unenforceable Domestic Judgments As noted in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments , con - stitutive judgments do not require enforcement, while declaratory judgments can be relied on but are unen - forceable by nature. In addition, given their interim nature, interim judgments rendered under Serbian law are also not enforceable. Moreover, if any judgment contains obvious omissions or errors (eg, identity of parties, amount of the claim, etc) that have not been duly corrected in the underlying proceedings, it may be considered partially or fully unenforceable. 2.7 Register of Domestic Judgments In Serbia, there is no publicly accessible central regis - ter of domestic judgments. However, the Serbian judi - ciary maintains an online case-tracking option, which may be used to monitor the status of court proceed - ings (both ongoing and those concluded), provided that appropriate information regarding the case (ie, case file designation and competent court) is inserted into the search engine. Moreover, official case law publications are prepared and published by certain (usually higher instance) courts, with data redacted on the specific details of the dispute. Finally, various private companies maintain subscrip - tion-based repositories of redacted court practice, which may be accessed for a monthly and/or yearly fee. 3. Foreign Judgments 3.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Foreign Judgments A foreign court judgment will have legal effect in Serbia only if it is first recognised by the competent Serbian court in accordance with the applicable laws. Once formally recognised, such foreign court judgment may be enforced as any other domestic judgment, pro - vided that it refers to a private legal claim and that it is final and enforceable in its country of origin. Aside from court judgments, Serbian law also foresees the possibility of recognising other court decisions, court settlements and decisions adopted by another author -
• the statutory period for requesting enforcement has lapsed; or • the claim established by the enforceable title has become time-barred, etc. As regards other decisions adopted in the course of the enforcement proceedings (eg, a decision on procedural costs), the debtor is generally granted the ability to oppose them by means of an objection ( prigovor ). Delaying the Enforcement Delaying the enforcement ( Odlaganje izvršenja , Arti - cles 120–127 LES) is allowed in certain situations under Serbian law, including upon a request of the debtor, provided that it proves the likelihood that car - rying out the enforcement would cause it irreparable or disproportionately greater harm than the creditor would suffer from such delay, and assuming that such delay is justified by specific reasons which the debtor must substantiate via a public or otherwise duly certi - fied document. While the enforcement is formally delayed, no coer - cive measures are taken (save for steps needed to secure a lien or appraise an asset), and enforcement automatically resumes when the delay period expires or the reasons for it cease to exist. Third-Party Involvement and Inadmissibility Claim A third-party objection and claim for inadmissibility (Articles 108–112 LES) are stipulated under the LES as specific legal remedies that allow any third party claiming a right that prevents enforcement on a par - ticular asset to – before completion of such proceed - ings – lodge an objection requesting that the public bailiff declare enforcement over such asset inadmis - sible. If the objection is dismissed or rejected, the relevant third party may, within 30 days from receipt of such underlying decision, request that the enforcement be declared inadmissible by a court by filing a civil lawsuit – although doing so does not stay the enforcement in question.
408 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook