After the warning before the lawsuit, the company GBD, which provides services in the field of technical protection of buildings, owned by Miodrag Gavrilović, received a lawsuit from PKS due to non-payment of membership fees. The debt for the membership fee of this company amounts to a total of 102.516 dinars for a period of three years. Specifically, the debt for 2021 amounts to 46.548 dinars, for 2022 it amounts to 46.572, and for 2023 it amounts to 9.396 dinars.
In response to the lawsuit, the representatives of this company first of all state that there is a question of the existence of both private and public interest that would justify mandatory membership, and then the mandatory payment of membership fees on a monthly basis. writes Dunja Marić for New Economy.
"It is impossible not to point out the principle of autonomy of will, one of the basic legal principles that protects the right of an individual to freely decide on his rights and obligations," the GBD firm stated in its response to the lawsuit.
"In addition to the aforementioned principle of autonomy of will, we also point to freedom of association. In this regard, we note that the European Court of Human Rights has included the very issue of freedom of association as one of the foundations of a democratic society," it added.
By establishing mandatory membership and then mandatory payment of membership fees, the right of an individual to independently decide whether to join an association or organization is limited, that is, in this case - freedom of association does not exist.
GBD also questions the equality of different companies before the law. Namely, they emphasize that, as there are companies that agree to pay the membership fee, those who think otherwise "are put on the other side of the coin", which, as they state, "obviously violates the principle of equality before the law".
"Also, it is another of the basic principles established, among other things, by the European Court of Human Rights, as one of the elementary principles of every democratic society. The same court nevertheless foresees that in some cases there could be a justification for mandatory membership, but only if there is a clear social or public interest that is thereby protected. In this particular case, there is an obvious lack of such interest, as well as a lack of adequate reasons for mandatory membership," states the GBD, stressing that the mandatory payment of membership fees is particularly controversial considering that they have never used the services or PKS benefits.
Membership fee is mandatory, but there are no benefits
The company emphasizes that PKS does not provide any benefits.
"Therefore, without the existence of any benefits or services that the PKS provides to its forced members, the question arises of the amount of the membership fee and its obvious disproportionality and unfairness, both for the reasons stated, and because there is no precise methodology for determining the amount of the same. The question of the nature of the membership fee, as well as its legitimate name, is also raised. How should such an illegitimate legal solution not be considered a parafiscal imposition on the economy, where, in a situation where there is no freedom of choice of association, the membership fee would have to be called by its proper name - tax or fee? Therefore, the very name of the membership fee is inappropriate and inadequate because, as we have already indicated, the association implies freedom of association and voluntariness, and thus, by the simple logic of things and guided by the fundamental principles of European law and democratic principles, the payment of the membership fee should imply a free choice", states the GBD company.
This company, nor its representatives, have never joined PKS, that is, they have not signed the application. Admittedly, they had no desire for that. PKS also, as stated by this company, never submitted any information about the way of organization, nor the rights of members.
"If the Prosecutor (PKS, ed. ed.) believes that the Defendant (GBD, ed. ed.) is a member, then it is under coercion, because there was no clearly expressed free will about membership, nor is there any. Membership cannot be forced, even on the basis of the Law, because such construction of membership is in contradiction with the Constitutional norms on the autonomy of the will. The Defendant does not accept and will not be a member of something that does not know what its purpose is, what is the role and benefit of the Plaintiff in society and the economy relations. There is no transparency in the work and spending of the funds obtained by the Prosecutor, and the question of justification and responsibility of the spending of finances by the Prosecutor and his representatives is rightly raised," it is stated.
The company "GBD" adds that it does not want to participate in the work, nor does it support the work of such an organization.
Ultimately, they conclude that the lawsuit is unfounded.
"There are other legal and democratic mechanisms and alternative options for protection."
interests of the plaintiff, and jeopardizing the basic legal and economic principles, and encroaching on the essential rights of its members, and the defendant specifically, is definitely not one of the ways", concludes the response to the lawsuit.
By the way, the Commercial Court in Belgrade ruled, in June of last year, that the company GBD must settle its debts and, in addition, pay default interest.
We would like to remind you that membership fee in PKS was introduced in 2017 and is mandatory for all companies registered in Serbia. The amount that companies pay depends on their annual income and the classification of the company. Thus, smaller companies have lower membership fee costs than companies with large revenues, which New Economy has already written about.
