FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LIVANČIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Applications nos. 15313/15 and 7 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 February 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Livančić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 January 2020,
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 Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. 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
6. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed 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.”
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 36-43, 14 November 2017, and Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, §§ 37-46, 14 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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;Declares the 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 or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;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 20 February 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
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
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
15313/15
20/03/2015
Jerko LIVANČIĆ
12/10/1989
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 07/06/2012
28/09/2012
13/06/2016
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)
1,000
250
15315/15
20/03/2015
Tončo LIVANČIĆ
23/07/1966
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Novi Travnik Cantonal Court, 07/06/2012
14/09/2012
03/06/2016
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s)
1,000
250
15321/15
20/03/2015
Kebir ŠEHIĆ
27/07/1963
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Bugojno First Instance Court, 13/10/2003
Bugojno First Instance Court, 20/07/2007
Bugojno First Instance Court, 28/04/2008
Bugojno First Instance Court, 20/11/2006
Bugojno First Instance Court, 19/04/2007
Bugojno First Instance Court, 17/06/2004
Bugojno First Instance Court, 13/10/2003
Bugojno First Instance Court, 04/04/2008
Bugojno First Instance Court, 25/04/2003
Bugojno First Instance Court, 29/05/2008
Bugojno First Instance Court, 04/04/2005
Bugojno First Instance Court, 31/03/2004
Bugojno First Instance Court, 04/07/2003
Bugojno First Instance Court, 18/01/2008
Bugojno First Instance Court, 23/05/2006
Bugojno First Instance Court, 28/05/2007
Bugojno First Instance Court, 04/04/2005
02/07/2012
03/07/2012
03/07/2012
03/07/2012
03/07/2012
03/07/2012
03/07/2012
04/07/2012
05/07/2012
14/08/2012
16/08/2012
16/08/2012
16/08/2012
17/08/2012
17/08/2012
28/08/2012
31/10/2012
06/10/2015
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s)
30/07/2015
3 year(s) and 28 day(s)
01/06/2016
3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 30 day(s)
08/10/2015
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 6 day(s)
02/10/2015
3 year(s) and 3 month(s)
08/10/2015
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 6 day(s)
26/04/2016
3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 24 day(s)
09/01/2017
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 6 day(s)
25/04/2016
3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s)
01/10/2015
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s)
27/04/2016
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 12 day(s)
01/06/2016
3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 17 day(s)
13/04/2017
4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)
05/10/2015
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s)
06/07/2016
3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
02/10/2015
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 5 day(s)
01/10/2015
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1,000
250
16853/15
23/03/2015
Vahid DERVIŠIĆ
22/01/1968
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Sarajevo First Instance Court, 10/07/2008
15/06/2012
21/01/2016
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 7 day(s)
1,000
250
18752/15
03/04/2015
Jasminka BASARA
04/01/1962
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Bugojno First Instance Court, 30/09/2011
02/04/2012
25/04/2016
4 year(s) and 24 day(s)
1,000
250
18756/15
03/04/2015
Fatima ČAJDO
14/07/1958
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Bugojno First Instance Court, 20/11/2006
23/02/2012
30/07/2015
3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1,000
250
18761/15
03/04/2015
Nedim NURKIĆ
24/11/1965
Kapetan Hatidža
Travnik
Bugojno First Instance Court, 14/11/2006
10/02/2012
05/10/2015
3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26 day(s)
1,000
250
5488/17
06/01/2017
Hajrudin BEŠIĆ
08/07/1945
Salkanović Husein
Zivinice
Živinice First Instance Court , 16/11/2001
15/02/2012
04/10/2019
7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 20 day(s)
1,000
250
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy