Points of law

The Municipal Court in Kraljevo dismissed the complaint and ruled that it had no real jurisdiction to decide in this legal matter. This Court ruling was explained by referring to article 27 of the Law on Litigation which envisaged the conditions in which a domestic court may base its jurisdiction. The Court held that either the Law on Litigation or an international treaty have not provided for the jurisdiction of national courts in cases involving proceedings related to claims resulting from the privatisation process in a foreign state or the rights stemming from labour relations.

The first-instance judgment was confirmed by the judgment of the District Court in Kraljevo of 23 November 2007, which decided upon appeal.

Summary of the case

DD, FF, GG, HH, former employees of the company “G”, filed to the Municipal Court in Kraljevo a complaint against the Republic of Slovenia, the first co-respondent, and the company “G” from Slovenia, the second co-respondent. They claimed that the co-respondents should pay them compensation for their shares of the sold company and for their past service. The applicants used to be employed with the affiliate of the “G” company in the Republic of Serbia before the disintegration of the SFRY.

Sources

Decision of the Municipal Court in Kraljevo of October 2007 and the Decision of the District Court in Kraljevo of November 2007.

Additional information (explanations, notes, etc.)

Under article 27 of the Law on Litigation, a court in the Republic of Serbia has jurisdiction to try cases involving an international element when such jurisdiction has been established by the law or provided for in an international treaty. If jurisdiction is not envisaged in any of the above ways or if there is no explicit provision relating to the jurisdiction of national courts to decide on specific disputes, national courts shall have jurisdiction when that jurisdiction emanates from the provisions relating to jurisdiction in situ of a national court.