FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28251/18
Husein ŠARGANOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and 19 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 November 2020 as a Chamber composed of:
Yonko Grozev, President,
Tim Eicke,
Faris Vehabović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were represented by Ms H. Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik.
2. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Lučić, Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina.The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicants were at the relevant time, and most of them still are, public servants on the payroll of the Una-Sana Canton[1]. Between 2004 and 2014 they obtained domestic judgments ordering the canton to pay them various amounts in respect of unpaid work-related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs. Writs of execution were then issued between 2007 and 2015.
5. Between 2015 and 2017 the applicants obtained Constitutional Court decisions finding a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and ordering the canton to take the necessary measures with a view to securing the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it within a reasonable time.
6. According to the latest information available to the Court (dated 12 October 2020), none of the judgments indicated in paragraph 4 above have been enforced.Relevant domestic law and practice
7. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the issue of non-enforcement of domestic judgments against cantons were set out in Muhović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ((dec.), nos. 40841/13 and 12 others, §§ 7-15 and 17, 8 October 2020).
COMPLAINTS
8. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments against the Una-Sana Canton. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
9. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. The relevant parts of the provisions relied on by them provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
“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 to the Convention
“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.”Joinder of the applications
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter, the Court finds it appropriate to order the joinder of the applications (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).The parties’ submissions
11. The Government informed the Court that on 28 February 2020 the Una-Sana Canton had introduced an action plan with a view to securing the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it. A list of 11,793 unenforced judgments was attached. The plan stated that the debt was almost 175,000,000 convertible marks (BAM)[2] (almost 75% of the cantonal budget in 2020) and that the judgments would be enforced, in chronological order, by 2040. The Government submitted that the matter had thus been resolved.
12. They also raised an inadmissibility objection, maintaining that the applicants had failed to act with reasonable expedition for the purposes of the six-month rule.
13. The applicants disagreed with the Government. In particular, they submitted that the enforcement time frame set by the Una-Sana Canton was unreasonable.The Court’s assessment
14. The Court reiterates that whilst it is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002‑III; Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, § 41, 30 June 2005; and Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, §§ 39 and 42, ECHR 2006‑XII), the system of staggering the enforcement of final domestic judgments may be accepted in exceptional circumstances (see Đurić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 79867/12 and 5 others, § 30, 20 January 2015).
15. In 2017 the Court adopted leading judgments concerning the non-enforcement of judgments against the Zenica-Doboj Canton and the Central Bosnia Canton, finding a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, 14 November 2017, and Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, 14 November 2017). It later followed the same approach in cases concerning the non-enforcement of judgments against the Una-Sana Canton (see, for example, Vučetić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], nos. 25698/15 and 7 others, 9 May 2019).
16. Given the number of similar cases, the Court invited the respondent State, under Article 46 of the Convention (see Kunić and Others, § 34, and Spahić and Others, § 33, both cited above), to solve the problem that had led to the finding of a breach by securing the implementation of the general measures indicated by the Constitutional Court in this connection. In many cases concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments against the Una-Sana Canton, the Constitutional Court ordered the canton to take the necessary measures with a view to securing the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it within a reasonable time (see paragraph 5 above).
17. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the Una-Sana Canton has set a time frame for the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it (see paragraph 11 above). It has undertaken to enforce all (more than 11,000) judgments, in chronological order, by 2040. In a case about the non-enforcement of domestic judgments against another canton (see Muhović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), nos. 40841/13 and 12 others, §§ 30-33, 15 September 2020), the Court held that an enforcement time frame with a longer duration, where the final date was set for 2041, was acceptable and amounted to implementation of the general measures it had indicated. There is no reason to take a different approach in the present case.
18. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the matter has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (ibid., § 34).
19. While there is no doubt that the applicants have suffered some non-pecuniary damage because of the delays that have occurred, the Court notes that they are entitled to substantial default interest. In view of the fact that, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the statutory rate of default interest is significantly higher than the rate of inflation (ibid., § 17), the Court agrees with the Constitutional Court that this will alleviate the applicants’ distress at least to some extent (see the Constitutional Court’s finding in this connection in its pilot decision of 12 March 2019, quoted in Muhović and Others, cited above, § 14). Furthermore, the Court has held in cases concerning structural problems at domestic level that it is not necessary to order that adequate redress be awarded to all persons affected (see, in particular, Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 64, 3 November 2009, and Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 149, ECHR 2014). Indeed, the Court’s role, after the State has implemented the general measures in conformity with the Convention, cannot be converted into providing individualised financial relief in repetitive cases arising from the same systemic situation (see Zadrić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 18804/04, 16 November 2010, and Muhović and Others, cited above, § 35).
20. In view of the above, the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present applications. Moreover, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, it finds no particular circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
21. This conclusion is, however, without any prejudice to the Court’s power to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the present or any other similar applications to the list of cases if the circumstances justify such a course (see Muhović and Others, cited above, § 37).
22. In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary for the Court to examine the inadmissibility objection raised by the Government (see paragraph 12 above).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 December 2020.
Andrea TamiettiYonko Grozev
RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
1
28251/18
Šarganović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
30/05/2018
Husein ŠARGANOVIĆ
1943
Bihać
2
33184/18
Hadžić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Ervin HADŽIĆ
1974
Bihać
3
33188/18
Muhamedagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Aida MUHAMEDAGIĆ
1969
Bihać
4
33198/18
Šantić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Marija ŠANTIĆ
1958
Bihać
5
33214/18
Ćaćulović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Ljubica ĆAĆULOVIĆ
1947
Bihać
6
33250/18
Kučković v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Bahra KUČKOVIĆ
1950
Bihać
7
33254/18
Pašić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Belma PAŠIĆ
1974
Bihać
8
33256/18
Janjičić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Katarina JANJIČIĆ
1958
Bihać
9
33258/18
Cazinkić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Selma CAZINKIĆ
1974
Bihać
10
33262/18
Studen v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Uroš STUDEN
1946
Bihać
11
33391/18
Mašinović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Hata MAŠINOVIĆ
1951
Bihać
12
33398/18
Badić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Ljubica BADIĆ
1951
Cazin
13
33401/18
Sitnić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Kerima SITNIĆ
1945
Bihać
14
33408/18
Omanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Rasema OMANOVIĆ
1947
Cazin
15
33413/18
Dervić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Suvad DERVIĆ
1963
Bihać
16
33421/18
Konjević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Ivka KONJEVIĆ
1948
Bihać
17
33427/18
Ćemalović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Indira ĆEMALOVIĆ
1969
Bihać
18
33431/18
Seder v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Enisa SEDER
1944
Cazin
19
33438/18
Omanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Šemsa OMANOVIĆ
1948
Cazin
20
33650/18
Ferizović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
26/06/2018
Naila FERIZOVIĆ
1943
Bihać
[1] Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska) and a district (the Brčko District). The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of ten cantons, including the Una-Sana Canton.
[2] The convertible mark uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro that the German mark has (1 euro = 1.95583 convertible marks).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy