FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21611/15
Esma AGAČEVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and 10 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 August 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Ms H. Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1, concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, were communicated to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) on 12 July 2018.
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgments in their favour had been fully enforced. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The applicants did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government. They argued instead that they had informed the Court about the new developments by their letters of 15 and 26 October 2018, namely before they had received the observations of the Government.
The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Čaluk and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.) [Committee], nos. 3927/15 and 63 others, §§ 18-19, 25 September 2018).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully enforced between 6 and 28 October 2016. The applicants did not inform the Court about that development before notice of the applications was given to the Government and no convincing explanation for this omission was provided.
Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the willful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the present applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 2019.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period or date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina (12 July 2002)
End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings
21611/15
21/04/2015
Esma Agačević
30/08/1968
Travnik First Instance Court, 31/03/2010
Travnik First Instance Court, 30/04/2012
04/10/2010
13/02/2013
06/10/2016
6 year(s) and 3 day(s)
06/10/2016
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 24 day(s)
55804/15
30/10/2015
Slobodanka Karajovanović
22/08/1953
Novi Travnik Cantonal Cout, 06/12/2007
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 28/05/2009
06/03/2008
15/06/2009
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
26/10/2016
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
55812/15
30/10/2015
Hasija Delić
07/01/1954
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 28/05/2009
06/03/2008
15/06/2009
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
26/10/2016
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
55822/15
02/11/2015
Jasmina Ćosić
26/10/1970
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
06/03/2008
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
56014/15
30/10/2015
Suvada Arnautović
01/03/1956
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 28/05/2009
06/03/2008
15/06/2009
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
26/10/2016
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
56018/15
30/10/2015
Fata Sejdinović
19/05/1963
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 28/05/2009
06/03/2008
15/06/2009
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
26/10/2016
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
56019/15
30/10/2015
Enver Purić
18/08/1972
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
06/03/2008
28/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 23 day(s)
56029/15
30/10/2015
Senad Avdić
06/03/1956
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 28/05/2009
06/03/2008
15/06/2009
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
26/10/2016
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
56036/15
30/10/2015
Azemina Drašković
19/10/1946
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
06/03/2008
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
57901/15
30/10/2015
Mirsada Begić
20/08/1961
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 06/12/2007
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 28/05/2009
06/03/2008
15/06/2009
26/10/2016
8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s)
26/10/2016
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)
57908/15
12/11/2015
Esminka Burek
16/07/1959
Travnik First Instance Court, 30/11/2009
Travnik First Instance Court, 15/04/2010
15/11/2010
07/04/2011
26/10/2016
5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 12 day(s)
26/10/2016
5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 20 day(s)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy