Industrijski sindikat Srbije

SITE FILES

THE FIRST COURT DECISION “BECAUSE OF NEGLECT” IN FAVOR OF STRIKERS OF “MBS”
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE – BACK TO WORK

Smederevo, October 11, 2006

The Municipal Court of Smederevo, namely, judge Dragoslava Krstajic, as the President of the Tribunal, in the legal matter of the plaintiff Ljubisa Milic from Smederevo, whose attorney Milan Kaljevic, attorney-at-law from Smederevo, filed a request for invalidation of court decision against the accused “Milan Blagojevic” a.d. from Smederevo,
reached a Decision “because of neglect”, on September 26, 2006, in which it was established that the Decision no. 227 of August 3, 2006, concerning the accused of “Milan Blagojevic” from Smederevo, was illegal, on the basis of which the plaintiff Ljubisa Milic was suspended from work, therefore, the accused was obliged to return the plaintiff to work, as well as to cover the litigation expenses in the amount of Din. 5.400,00, within 8 days as of the date of receipt of the Court Decision, under threat of coercive execution.

It stands in the justification of the Decision that the plaintiff stated in the complaint that the accused suspended him from work on the basis of the contested decision, and that neither in the statement nor in the justification of that Decision he stated the reason for suspension, because, he didn’t even state the time, place and mode of action, that was the cause of reaching this decision. For this reason, he requested the court to establish that this decision was illicit, as well as the obligation of the accused to return Ljubisa Milic to work, and he also requested covering the litigation expenses. He enclosed a copy of the contested decision with the complaint. According to the Decision, IP no. 229/06 of August 21, 2006, the complaint was delivered to the accused for his response, with the warning of the consequences in case of neglect. According to the data from the delivery note, placed in the briefs of the case, the accused received the complaint and the decision with warning in an orderly manner, on August 23, 2006, but he didn’t send the reply to the complaint within the term anticipated by law.

As the accused did not, in the set term, reply to the complaint, and this complaint was delivered to him orderly with the instruction on the consequences of neglect, whereby the facts on which legal suit was based were neither contrary to evidence, filed by the plaintiff, nor with the facts being generally known, and legal grounds of legal suit resulted from the facts stated in the complaint, and the commonly known circumstances did not exist from which it resulted that the accused was prevented from giving reply to the complaint for justified reasons, therefore, the conditions were fulfilled, in the particular case, provided for by the provisions of Article 338. of the Law on Legal Proceedings, so a decision was made as in the statement of the Decision. The decision on the costs of proceedings was made on the basis of the provisions of Article 150. of the Law on Legal Proceedings, therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to pay the expenses in the total amount of Din. 5.400,00 for drawing up the complaint by the lawyer, pursuant to applicable Administrative Fee Law.
The Municipal Court of Smederevo, September 26, 2006.

Home

About us

Membership

International Cooperation

The media columnr

Legal protection

Forum

Contacts