„Two functional wholes“ of ATP Vojvodina were recently sold according to the advertisement published by the Board of Trustees, i.e. Nikola Pavlović-the Bankruptcy Trustee, in spite of existence of two mortgages about which a dispute was initiated.

This fact was the one that prevented carrying out of the sale in accordance with the law because, although the buyers regularly paid the auctioned amount, not even one notary accepted the transaction and registered the new owners.

“The solution“ was found by the Bankruptcy Judge who made the decision in accordance with the Bankruptcy Trustee's demand and gave the order to the Cadastre to register the new owners and to delete the mortgages which were encumbrance on the property list.
That was done according to the Bankruptcy Law.

However, the problem is in the fact that the bankruptcy of ATP Vojvodina was open in 2008 when the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure was in force and the process was being conducted in accordance with that law. The Bankruptcy Law was adopted later and it was that very law which said that the processes started in accordance with the previous law would be completed according to the same law.

What is the difference?

The Law on Bankruptcy Procedure does not anticipate the possibility for the judge to make the decision on the carried out sale, bu the Bankruptcy Trustee is the one who has to do that. He/She has to transfer the property without encumbrance when the price is paid. That is something which the Bankruptcy Trustee could not do, because selling of the property under encumbrance is illegal, so the notaries did not want to risk losing their licences.

As a bankruptcy creditor, I warned about the legal consequences of selling the real estate of ATP Vojvodina which appeared on the basis of the Contract of Sale in which the signs of the contractual parties were not certified by the competent public notary. According to that, there were neither conditions for verification of the calculation in accordance with which the separate creditors were paid, and there were even fewer conditions provided for calculation of the award for the Bankruptcfy Trustee who gave 40,000 Euros to himself, along with somehow calculated same amount for the bankruptcy procedure costs.

All these activities are being done in order to sell my investment at the lowest price as soon as possible and to partially pay only one separate creditor - Credit Agricole Bank, which is the one managing the Bankruptcy procedure.

I have submitted the appeals against such actions of the Bankruptcy Trustee and Bankruptcy Judge:„Two functional wholes“ of ATP Vojvodina were recently sold according to the advertisement published by the Board of Trustees, i.e. Nikola Pavlović-the Bankruptcy Trustee, in spite of existence of two mortgages about which a dispute was initiated.

This fact was the one that prevented carrying out of the sale in accordance with the law because, although the buyers regularly paid the auctioned amount, not even one notary accepted the transaction and registered the new owners.

“The solution“ was found by the Bankruptcy Judge who made the decision in accordance with the Bankruptcy Trustee's demand and gave the order to the Cadastre to register the new owners and to delete the mortgages which were encumbrance on the property list.

That was done according to the Bankruptcy Law.

However, the problem is in the fact that the bankruptcy of ATP Vojvodina was open in 2008 when the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure was in force and the process was being conducted in accordance with that law. The Bankruptcy Law was adopted later and it was that very law which said that the processes started in accordance with the previous law would be completed according to the same law.

What is the difference?

The Law on Bankruptcy Procedure does not anticipate the possibility for the judge to make the decision on the carried out sale, bu the Bankruptcy Trustee is the one who has to do that. He/She has to transfer the property without encumbrance when the price is paid. That is something which the Bankruptcy Trustee could not do, because selling of the property under encumbrance is illegal, so the notaries did not want to risk losing their licences.

As a bankruptcy creditor, I warned about the legal consequences of selling the real estate of ATP Vojvodina which appeared on the basis of the Contract of Sale in which the signs of the contractual parties were not certified by the competent public notary. According to that, there were neither conditions for verification of the calculation in accordance with which the separate creditors were paid, and there were even fewer conditions provided for calculation of the award for the Bankruptcfy Trustee who gave 40,000 Euros to himself, along with somehow calculated same amount for the bankruptcy procedure costs.

All these activities are being done in order to sell my investment at the lowest price as soon as possible and to partially pay only one separate creditor - Credit Agricole Bank, which is the one managing the Bankruptcy procedure.

I have submitted the appeals against such actions of the Bankruptcy Trustee and Bankruptcy Judge:

7 April 2021 Appeal against the decision made by the Commercial Court in Novi Sad St 9/2010 .pdf

8 April 2021 Appeal to the Commercial Court of Appeal against the decision made on 1 April 2021 by the Commercial Court .pdf

The Bankruptcy Judge dismissed the appeal as untimely claiming that it had been submitted on 12 April, although it was sent by mail on 8 April and the following day it was registered in the office, meaning that it was sent on time. I submitted appeal against that decision as well.

21 April 2021 Appeal of the bankruptcy creditor Ilija Dević against the decision made by the Commercial Court from Novi Sad.pdf

The Commercial Court of Appeal is on the move, and I expect that they will not allow retroactive implemetation of the Bankruptcy Law in the case which started in accordance with the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure, thus showing that the principle of legal certainty within the Chapter 23 is respected in Serbia.

Let me remind you that this Chapter is the one because of which the case of ATP Vojvodina is under monitoring of the European Commission and that it is among five biggest on the list of 24 compromized privatizations and the only one in which the investor, but not the state suffers the damage.


Sincerely Yours,

Ilija Dević, Investor of ATP Vojvodina Company