FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CRNKIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 38070/19 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 23 April 2021
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
STRASBOURG
15 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Crnkić and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications 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”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr O. Eterović, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo
3. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications on 13 February 2020.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“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.”Application no. 38732/19 in respect of Vahudin Hodžić, Sadik Ćesko and Jelena Ćebić and application no. 41577/19 in respect of Senija Alispahić, Muhidin Rašidović, Adnan Ikanović, Sead Selman, Selma Šikalo and Mladen Milosavljević
8. The Government informed the Court that Vahudin Hodžić, Sadik Ćesko, Jelena Ćebić, Senija Alispahić, Muhidin Rašidović, Adnan Ikanović, Sead Selman, Selma Šikalo and Mladen Milosavljević had reached friendly settlements with the relevant authorities in respect of the decisions under consideration in cases nos. 38732/19 and 41577/19, giving up on default interest and accepting that the payment of the principal debt and the costs would constitute the final resolution of the case. The principal debt and the costs had then been paid on the dates indicated in the appended table. The applicants did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government. The Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of applications nos. 38732/19 and 41577/19 under Article 37 § 1 in fine in respect of those applicants.
9. Accordingly, that part of applications nos. 38732/19 and 41577/19 should be struck out of the list.
B. Applications nos. 38732/19 and 41577/19 in respect of the remaining applicants and all other applications
10. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
11. In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017 and Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, §§ 26-31, 14 November 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
12. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Spahić and Others, cited above, §§ 36-43, and Kunić and Others, cited above, §§ 37-46), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums as indicated in the appended table.
17. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Decides to strike application no. 38732/19 in respect of Vahudin Hodžić, Sadik Ćesko and Jelena Ćebić and application no. 41577/19 in respect of Senija Alispahić, Muhidin Rašidović, Adnan Ikanović, Sead Selman, Selma Šikalo and Mladen Milosavljević out of its list of cases;Declares the remainder of applications nos. 38732/19 and 41577/19, as well as all other applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions;Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 April 2021[1], pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaArmen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Relevant
domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[2] [3]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
per application
(in euros)[4]
38070/19
26/06/2019
(10 applicants)
Emir CRNKIĆ
1966
Elmedin KOBILJAK
1960
Kenan KREPONIĆ
1964
Emir KURŠUMLIJA
1962
Ervin HODŽIĆ
1978
Fuad DUŠKAN
1968
Muhidin DURANOVIĆ
1965
Renata
SMOLIK-POPOVIĆ
1949
Edina VUK
1968
Edvin ŠABANOVIĆ
1986
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 29/06/2017
21/02/2018
pending
More than 3 year(s) and
9 day(s)
1,000
250
38732/19
11/07/2019
(9 applicants)
Davorinka AZINOVIĆ
1957
Dževad PALAVRA
1972
Azim BAŠIĆ
1969
Emir KAPO
1977
Ernis BULBUL
1971
Elvedin BEGIĆ
1974
=======
Vahudin HODŽIĆ
1970
Sadik ĆESKO
1964
Jelena ČEBIĆ
1983
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 16/10/2014
06/05/2016
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s)
===========
04/06/2020 (for applicant HODŽIĆ),
4 year(s) and 30 day(s)
06/05/2020 (for applicant ĆESKO),
4 year(s) and 1 day(s)
29/06/2020 (for applicant ČEBIĆ),
4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and
24 day(s)
1,000 in respect of each of the first six applicants
250
41219/19
08/07/2019
(4 applicants)
Sabaheta ĆUTUK
1963
Irena JERKIĆ
1963
Tatjana MARKHOT
1964
Šćepan RAGUŽ
1955
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 07/04/2015
Sarajevo Municipal Court (for applicant RAGUŽ),
09/11/2015
18/09/2015
03/03/2016
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 12 day(s)
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s)
1,000
250
41437/19
08/07/2019
Jozo ANĐIĆ
1960
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 09/12/2011
30/05/2016
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1,000
250
41577/19
19/07/2019
(21 applicants)
Anisa RAHMANOVIĆ
1979
Edin KUNDALIĆ
1970
Jasminka KURTOVIĆ
1974
Mevludin KALJANAC
1964
Ismir SILAJDŽIĆ
1981
Zijad VATREŠ
1973
Adem ČELIK
1959
Alija KOTAREVIĆ
1962
Elmira KARAHASANOVIĆ
1958
Maja
MARTINOVIĆ-MUK
1979
Alma UŠANOVIĆ
1977
Avni RIZVIĆ
1977
Raza MUHAREMOVIĆ
1962
Adnan BEŠLIĆ
1976
Suada HODŽIĆ
1962
========
Senija ALISPAHIĆ
1968
Muhidin RAŠIDOVIĆ
1976
Adnan IKANOVIĆ
1980
Sead SELMAN
1964
Selma ŠIKALO
1979
Mladen MILOSAVLJEVIĆ
1959
Sarajevo Municipal Court 17/02/2017
23/04/2017
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)
================
27/07/2020 (for applicant ALISPAHIĆ),
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s)
13/05/2020 (for applicant RAŠIDOVIĆ),
3 year(s) and 20 day(s)
29/06/2020 (for applicant IKANOVIĆ),
3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)
03/06/2020 (for applicant SELMAN),
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 11 day(s)
03/04/2020 (for applicant ŠIKALO),
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s)
19/06/2020 (for applicant MILOSAVLJEVIĆ)
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)
1,000 in respect of each of the first fifteen applicants
250
45843/19
17/07/2019
(4 applicants)
Emir CRNKIĆ
1966
Elmedin KOBILJAK
1960
Ervin HODŽIĆ
1978
Edvin ŠABANOVIĆ
1986
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 11/07/2014
03/03/2016
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s)
0[5]
0
51710/19
27/09/2019
Spomenko PLAKALOVIĆ
1983
Vladimir TADIĆ
1982
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 04/11/2014
30/11/2016
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1,000
250
55653/19
03/09/2019
Elmedin KOBILJAK
1960
Edina VUK
1968
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 25/01/2012
05/07/2017
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s)
0[6]
0
57317/19
27/09/2019
(5 applicants)
Fatima SMRIKO
1964
Vildana AHMETAGIĆ
1961
Amra ZAHIROVIĆ
1971
Sadija VELAGIĆ
1961
Muhamed KONAK
1961
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 18/11/2011
05/02/2016
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 25 day(s)
1,000
250
[1] Rectified on 23 April 2021: the date “25 April 2021” has been replaced by 15 April 2021.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[3] Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.
[4] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[5] The applicants are afforded just satisfaction in case no. 38070/19 (see above).
[6] The applicants are afforded just satisfaction in case no. 38070/19 (see above).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy