FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 15637/20 and 16687/20
Dževad IMAMOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Azra FRAŠTO against Bosnia and Herzegovina
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 January 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the date indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr O. Eterović, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) on 25 June 2020.
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgments in their favour had been enforced. They therefore requested the Court to reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The applicants did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government.
The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Čaluk and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), [Committee], nos. 3927/15 and 63 others, §§ 18-19, 25 September 2018).
Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were indeed enforced between 14 November 2019 and 11 June 2020 (see the appended table). The applicants did not inform the Court about that development. The Court learned about it only from the Government’s observations of 14 October 2020. No convincing explanation for that omission was provided.
Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the present applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtArmen 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
15637/20
11/03/2020
Dževad IMAMOVIĆ
1970
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 16/06/2016
22/08/2016
14/11/2019
3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and
24 day(s)
16687/20
11/03/2020
Azra FRAŠTO
1969
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 08/12/2014
Sarajevo Municipal Court, 17/06/2016
16/02/2016
16/05/2017
11/06/2020
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and
27 day(s)
11/06/2020
3 year(s) and 27 day(s)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy