The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases raising issues similar to those in the present case, particularly in cases concerning companies undergoing restructuring, privatisation and/or other forms of transition from a planned to a market economy (see R. Kacapor and Others v. Serbia, cited above, §§ 115-16; Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 and 3 others, §§ 123-24, 13 January 2009; Mijanovic v. Montenegro, no. 19580/06, §§ 86-91, 17 September 2013; and Keselj and Others, cited above, § 23).

The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases raising issues similar to those raised in the present case (see R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, §§ 115-116 and 120; Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 et seq., §§ 123-124 and 133-134, 13 January 2009).

It further observes that it has frequently found violations of Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to those raised in the present case (see R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, §§ 115-116 and § 120, Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 et seq., §§ 123-124 and §§ 133-134, 13 January 2009).

Moreover, the Court observes that a complaint of non-enforcement of a final domestic decision rendered against socially-owned companies, already subject of the Court's well-established case-law (see, among many other authorities, R. Kacapor and Others, cited above, §§ 115-116 and § 120; and Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05 et seq., §§ 123-124 and §§ 133-134, 13 January 2009), does not concern an important question of principle, which might justify examining it any further.

The domestic courts" decision to reject the applicant's enforcement request at that point was, thus, justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Crnisanin and Others v. Serbia, nos. 35835/05, 43548/05, 43569/05 and 36986/06, § 125, 13 January 2009).