FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52203/11
Salih ALIJAGIĆ
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 May 2015 as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Paul Mahoney,
Faris Vehabović, judges
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 6 January 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Salih Alijagić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia who was born in 1944 and lives in Dubrovnik. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Ademović and Mr V. Ivanović, lawyers practising in Sarajevo and Belgrade, respectively.
The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the Republika Srpska for war damage.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 6 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“I, Monika Mijić, the Agent, declare that the Government are ready to accept that there was a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by the Convention due to non-enforcement of the domestic judgment rendered in favour of the applicant and offer to pay a total sum of 900 euros to the applicant Salih Alijagić.
This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into convertible marks at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I further declare that the domestic authorities will secure full enforcement of the remaining part of the debt under the domestic judgment which is the subject of consideration in this case, in cash, in four equal instalments to be paid in the following manner:
- the first instalment within nine months from the date of the notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases;
- the second instalment within six months from the first payment;
- the third instalment within six months from the second payment; and
- the fourth instalment within six months from the third payment.
The remaining part of the debt under the domestic judgment includes the amount of BAM 4,752,762.00 in respect of the remaining principal debt (as set out in Writs of Execution No. 95 0 I 003272 09 I, dated 23 October 2009 and 3 February 2010), the amount of BAM 4,752,762.00 in respect of default interest, the amount of BAM 23,200.00 in respect of the enforcement proceedings cost (Writ of Execution No. 95 0 I 003272 09 I, dated 23 October 2009), and the amount of BAM 12,700.00 in respect of the enforcement proceedings cost (Writ of Execution No. 95 0 I 006182 10 I, dated 24 June 2010).
This will constitute the final resolution of the case”.
In a letter of 10 February 2015, the applicant informed the Court that he did not accept the Government’s declaration and wished the examination of his case to be continued.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003‑VI; see also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bosnia and Herzegovina, its practice concerning complaints of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions (see, Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Karanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 39462/03, 20 November 2007; Milisavljević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 7435/04, 3 March 2009; and Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 1218/07 et al., 10 November 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 June 2015.
Françoise Elens-PassosGuido Raimondi
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy