FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 66816/09
Aleksandar AREŽINA against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 July 2012 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged between 30 November 2009 and 21 January 2011,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, 34 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are:
Mr Aleksandar Arežina, Mr Boško Vujčić, Ms Milena Vujčić, Mr Saša Vujčić, Mr Slaviša Vujčić, Ms Radana Vujčić, Mr Ljuban Vujanović,
Ms Stoja Vujanović, Ms Tanja Gojić, Mr Rade Šukur, Mr Pero Vujičić,
Ms Stana Vujičić, Mr Pero Vujičić, Ms Cvijeta Vujičić, Mr Mirko Rokvić, Mr Mladenko Prcać, Mr Miroslav Ratković, Mr Radovan Nedić, Ms Mara Nedić, Ms Milica Nedić, Mr Radomir Nedić, Mr Vojislav Nedić,
Mr Čedomir Vujanović, Ms Smilja Vujanović, Ms Darinka Nestorović,
Mr Petar Nestorović, Ms Milijana Nestorović, Mr Ranko Lukić,
Mr Stanislav Babić, Ms Petra Babić, Mr Nedeljko Babić, Mr Miladin Babić, Mr Nikola Galić and Ms Milena Galić.
Mr Ljuban Vujanović, Ms Stoja Vujanović, Ms Tanja Gojić, Mr Rade Šukur, Mr Pero Vujičić, Ms Stana Vujičić, Mr Pero Vujićič, Ms Cvijeta Vujičić, Mr Mirko Rokvić, Mr Mladenko Prcać, Mr Miroslav Ratković,
Mr Radovan Nedić, Ms Mara Nedić, Ms Milica Nedić, Mr Radomir Nedić, Mr Vojislav Nedić, Mr Čedomir Vujanović, Ms Smilja Vujanović,
Ms Darinka Nestorović, Mr Petar Nestorović, Ms Milijana Nestorović were represented by Mr Đorđe Marić, a lawyer practising in Banja Luka.
Mr Ranko Lukić, Mr Stanislav Babić, Ms Petra Babić, Mr Nedeljko Babić, Mr Miladin Babić, Mr Nikola Galić and Ms Milena Galić were represented by Ms Radmila Plavšić and Mr Ranko Vulić, lawyers practising in Banja Luka.
The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.
This case is, like Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 1218/07 et al., 10 November 2009 and Runić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 28735/06 et al., 15 November 2011, about the non-enforcement of final and enforceable domestic judgments awarding war damages to the applicants.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
By 14 judgments of different courts of first instance of 7 March 2000, 13 December 2001, 19 May 1999, 15 September 1999, 24 March 2000, 27 July 2000, 3 June 2003, 29 November 2001, 25 April 2000, 29 March 1999, 27 September 2000, 12 February 2002, 29 January 2003 and 26 April 2000, which became final on 21 January 2004, 2 September 2004, 20 July 2000, 18 August 2000, 7 August 2001, 8 October 2001, 6 July 2005, 22 October 2004, 5 July 2001, 6 July 2000, 11 January 2001, 25 March 2005, 24 June 2005 and 17 December 2004, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:
(i) BAM 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 550 in respect of legal costs to Mr Arežina;
(ii) BAM 55,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,315 in respect of legal costs to the Vujčićs;
(iii) BAM 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,821 in respect of legal costs to the Vujanovićs and Ms Gojić;
(iv) BAM 25,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,048 in respect of legal costs to Mr Šukur;
(v) BAM 19,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,512 in respect of legal costs to the Vujičićs;
(vi) BAM 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Rokvić;
(vii) BAM 19,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,248 in respect of legal costs to Mr Prcać;
(viii) BAM 19,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 232 in respect of legal costs to Mr Ratković;
(ix) BAM 24,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 940 in respect of legal costs to the Nedićs;
(x) BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Vujanovićs;
(xi) BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 400 in respect of legal costs to the Nestorovićs;
(xii) BAM 17,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,333 in respect of legal costs to Mr Lukić;
(xiii) BAM 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Babićs; and
(xiv) BAM 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 6,510 in respect of legal costs to the Galićs.
The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 6 April 2004, 27 May 2005, 7 December 2000,
11 December 2000, 16 November 2001, 20 March 2002, 24 October 2005, 3 January 2005, 2 November 2001, 7 December 2000, 17 October 2002,
6 March 2003, 3 March 2006 and 19 September 2006, respectively.
The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("the Constitutional Court"). On
20 December 2005 and 9 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of the Vujanovićs and Ms Gojić, Mr Šukur, the Vujičićs, Mr Rokvić, Mr Prcać, Mr Ratković, the Nedićs, the Vujanovićs and the Nestorovićs. However, on 15 April 2009 it dismissed the cases of Mr Arežina, the Vujčićs, Mr Lukić, the Babićs and the Galićs due to the change of circumstances following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004.
After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 31 March 2008 and
30 June 2009 the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates:
(i) on 15 December 2008 to Mr Arežina and the application was lodged on 30 November 2009;
(ii) on 15 December 2008 to the Vujčićs and the application was lodged on 7 December 2009;
(iii) on 15 December 2008 to the Vujanovićs and Ms Gojić and the application was lodged on 19 February 2010;
(iv) on 15 December 2008 to Mr Šukur and the application was lodged on 19 February 2010;
(v) on 15 December 2008 to the Vujičićs and the application was lodged on 19 February 2010;
(vi) on 30 June 2008 to Mr Rokvić and the application was lodged on 8 March 2010;
(vii) on 15 December 2008 to Mr Prcać and the application was lodged on 8 March 2010;
(viii) on 15 December 2008 to Mr Ratković and the application was lodged on 20 April 2010;
(ix) on 15 December 2008 to the Nedićs and the application was lodged on 20 April 2010;
(x) on 30 June 2008 to the Vujanovićs and the application was lodged on 20 April 2010;
(xi) on 15 December 2008 to the Nestorovićs and the application was lodged on 20 April 2010;
(xii) on 30 October 2009 to Mr Lukić and the application was lodged on 21 January 2011;
(xiii) on 30 October 2009 to the Babićs and the application was lodged on 21 January 2011; and
(xiv) on 30 October 2009 and on 15 June 2010 to the Galićs and the application was lodged on 21 January 2011.
The Vujanovićs, Ms Gojić, Mr Rokvić and the Babićs have already sold some or all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Čolić and Others (cited above, §§ 10-12) and Runić and Others (cited above, § 11).
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the judgments indicated above. The case was examined by the Court under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Article 6, in so far as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
Given their common factual and legal background, the Court decides that these 14 applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II. ADMISSIBILITY
The Government argued that the present applications were submitted outside of the six-month time-limit. Alternatively, the Government submitted that, in view of the full enforcement of domestic judgements in question, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
The applicants disagreed.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of the law and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. The rule also affords the prospective applicant time to consider whether to lodge an application and, if so, to decide on the specific complaints and arguments to be raised (see, for example, Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, §§ 32-33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V). Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as the non-enforcement of final and enforceable domestic judgments in the present cases, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the continuing situation (see Ülke v. Turkey (dec.), no. 39437/98, 24 January 2006).
Furthemore, in Runić and Others (cited above, § 15, in which the applicants, like in the present case, had accepted government bonds in lieu of cash as means of enforcement) the Court held that domestic judgments ordering payment of war damage had been fully enforced by the issuance of government’s bonds.
Therefore, having in mind the dates of introduction of the present applications and the dates of enforcement of domestic judgments in question (as indicated above) it is clear that they have been submitted outside of the six-month time-limit.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule. The application must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
66816/09
Aleksandar AREŽINA
21/06/1975
Banja Luka
88/10
Boško VUJČIĆ
27/07/1962
Prijedor
Milena VUJČIĆ
28/03/1966
Prijedor
Saša VUJČIĆ
21/04/1987
Prijedor
Slaviša VUJČIĆ
17/04/1990
Prijedor
Radana VUJČIĆ
15/05/1933
Prijedor
17778/10
Ljuban VUJANOVIĆ
10/04/1928
Novi Grad
Tanja VUJANOVIĆ
19/06/1968
Novi Grad
Stoja VUJANOVIĆ
02/09/1944
Novi Grad
17794/10
Rade SUKUR
Rade SUKUR
Kneževo
17797/10
Pero VUJIČIĆ
06/05/1930
Donja Crkvina
Stana VUJIČIĆ
12/04/1933
Donja Crkvina
Pero VUJIČIĆ
Donja Crkvina
Cvijeta VUJIČIĆ
05/01/1954
Donja Crkvina
31694/10
Mirko ROKVIĆ
09/08/1948
Banja Luka
31695/10
Mladenko PRCAĆ
05/09/1961
Omarska
58077/10
Miroslav RATKOVIĆ
12/04/1971
Prijedor
58081/10
Radovan NEDIĆ
Radovan NEDIĆ
Gornja Slatina
Mara NEDIĆ
Gornja Slatina
Milica NEDIĆ
Gornja Slatina
Radomir NEDIĆ
Gornja Slatina
Vojislav NEDIĆ
Gornja Slatina
58094/10
Čedomir VUJANOVIĆ
14/12/1928
Novi Grad
Smilja VUJANOVIĆ
06/04/1939
Novi Grad
58096/10
Darinka NESTOROVIĆ
15/12/1951
Šamac
Petar NESTOROVIĆ
01/09/1971
Šamac
Miljana NESTOROVIĆ
23/12/1978
Šamac
17310/11
Ranko LUKIĆ
02/04/1968
Banja Luka
17325/11
Stanislav BABIĆ
03/05/1947
Čelinac
Petra BABIĆ
16/04/1946
Čelinac
Nedeljko BABIĆ
26/03/1978
Čelinac
Miladin BABIĆ
19/03/1969
Čelinac
17328/11
Nikola GALIĆ
12/12/1944
Banja Luka
Milena GALIĆ
20/05/1950
Banja Luka
Slavica GALIĆ
10/08/1971
Banja Luka
Nikolina GALIĆ
15/02/1994
Banja Luka
Dalilbor GALIĆ
25/12/1978
Banja Luka
[1]1. The convertible mark uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro that the German mark has: EUR 1 = BAM 1.95583.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy