CASE OF BOKAN AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF BOKAN AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

(Applications nos. 54629/11, 10092/12, 15543/12, 17787/12 and 43605/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 July 2014

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bokan and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2014,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in five applications (nos. 54629/11, 10092/12, 15543/12, 17787/12 and 43605/12) against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 12 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Draško Bokan, Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Davor Joveš, Ms Kristina Joveš, Mr Dragoslav Banjac, Ms Nada Tutić, Ms Dušanka Tutić, Ms Dragana Tutić, Mr Borislav Tutić, Ms Radmila Kovačević, Ms Jelena Kovačević and Ms Nikolina Kovačević (“the applicants”), on 10 August 2011, 30 November 2011, 10 January 2012, 16 January 2012 and 17 May 2012, respectively.

2. Mr Draško Bokan, the Jovešs and the Kovačevićs were represented by Ms R. Plavšić, a lawyer practising in Banja Luka. Mr Dragoslav Banjac and the Tutićs were represented by Mr M. Prerad and Mr D. Prerad, lawyers practicing in Banja Luka. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.

3. 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.

4. On 11 January 2013 (application no. 54629/11) and 14 March 2013 (applications nos. 10092/12, 15543/12, 17787/12 and 43605/12) the applications were communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5. The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6. By five judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 30 March 2009, 5 February 2001, 19 November 2001, 3 May 2000 and 13 December 2000 which became final on 12 November 2009, 23 August 2004, 26 October 2004, 26 April 2005 and 26 December 2001, 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 with default interest at the statutory rate:BAM 5,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,039 in respect of legal costs to Mr Draško Bokan;BAM 23,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Jovešs;BAM 20,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 847 in respect of legal costs to Mr Dragoslav Banjac;BAM 28,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,669 in respect of legal costs to the Tutićs; andBAM 17,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,300 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,666 in respect of legal costs to the Kovačevićs.

7. The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 December 2009, 22 October 2004, 27 May 2005, 6 September 2006 and 5 April 2002, respectively.

8. The applicants, except for Mr Dragoslav Banjac and the Tutićs, complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On different dates 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 Mr Draško Bokan, the Jovešs and the Kovačevićs. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would most likely have been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; AP 224/08 of December 2010, § 37).

9. After an 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 25 March 2008 and 19 March 2013 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:on 31 May 2012 to Mr Draško Bokan;on 31 May 2012 to the Jovešs;on 31 May 2012 to Mr Dragoslav Banjac;on 15 June 2010 to Ms Nada Tutić and Mr Borislav Tutić, on 1 July 2010 to Ms Dragana Tutić, on 31 May 2012 to Ms Dušanka Tutić;on 15 December 2008 to Ms Radmila Kovačević and Ms Jelena Kovačević and on 24 December 2012 to Ms Nikolina Kovačević.

 10. Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Dragoslav Banjac, the Tutićs, and the Kovačevićs have already sold some or all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

11. The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Čolić and Others (cited above, §§ 10-12) and Runić and Others (cited above, § 11).

THE LAW

12. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the judgments indicated in paragraph 6 above. The case was examined by the Court under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

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 proceeding 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.”

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

13. Given their common factual and legal background, the Court decides that these five applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Convention.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

A. Admissibility

1. As regards Ms Nada Tutić, Mr Borislav Tutić, Ms Dragana Tutić, Ms Radmila Kovačević and Ms Jelena Kovačević

14. 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 the domestic judgments in question, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

15. The applicants did not make any comments.

16. 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 Arežina v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), nos. 66816/09 et al., 3 July 2012).

Furthermore, 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 bonds. Therefore, having in mind the dates of introduction of applications nos. 17787/12 and 43605/12 and the dates of enforcement of domestic judgments in question with regard to Ms Nada Tutić, Mr Borislav Tutić, Ms Dragana Tutić, Ms Radmila Kovačević and Ms Jelena Kovačević (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 Ms Nada Tutić, Mr Borislav Tutić and Ms Dragana Tutić (application no. 17787/12), Ms Radmila Kovačević and Ms Jelena Kovačević (application no. 43605/12) have failed to comply with the six-month rule. The application no. 17787/12 in respect of Ms Nada Tutić, Mr Borislav Tutić, Ms Dragana Tutić, and the application no. 43605/12, in respect of Ms Radmila Kovačević and Ms Jelena Kovačević, must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

2. As regards the remainder of the case

17. The court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

18. The Court notes that the present case, in respect of Mr Draško Bokan (application no. 54629/11); Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Davor Joveš and Ms Kristina Joveš (application no. 10092/12); Mr Dragoslav Banjac (application no. 15543/12); Ms Dušanka Tutić (application no. 17787/12); and Ms Nikolina Kovačević (application 43605/12), is practically identical to Runić and Others (cited above) in which the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as well as a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Considering the length of the period of non-enforcement of the judgments in issue (between more than two and ten years after the date of ratification of the Convention by Bosnia and Herzegovina), and having examined all relevant circumstances, the Court does not see any reason to depart from its previous case-law.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of Mr Draško Bokan, Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Davor Joveš, Ms Kristina Joveš, Mr Dragoslav Banjac, Ms Dušanka Tutić and Ms Nikolina Kovačević.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

20. The Court generally considers that a State’s failure to fully enforce a final domestic judgment causes distress for which the applicants concerned must be compensated (see Čolić and Others, cited above § 21). However, since the present applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in respect of the delayed enforcement of the impugned judgments, there is no call to award them any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the application no. 17787/12 in respect of Ms Nada Tutić, Mr Borislav Tutić and Ms Dragana Tutić and the application no. 43605/12 in respect of Ms Radmila Kovačević and Ms Jelena Kovačević inadmissible;

3. Declares the application no. 17787/12 in respect of Ms Dušanka Tutić, the application no. 43605/12 in respect of Ms Nikolina Kovačević, and the other three applications admissible;

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of Mr Draško Bokan, Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Davor Joveš, Ms Kristina Joveš, Mr Dragoslav Banjac, Ms Dušanka Tutić and Ms Nikolina Kovačević.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident

[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