FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24652/09
Slavko STOJNIĆ
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 October 2015 as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 April 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Slavko Stojnić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1961 and lives in Banja Luka.
2. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.
A. Relevant background
3. The applicant was an officer of the JNA, the armed forces of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”). The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre-war flat in Sarajevo.
4. The detailed background concerning socially owned flats, military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the 1992-95 war in Bosnia in Herzegovina is provided in Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, §§ 5-17, 27 May 2010 and Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05, 19724/05, 47860/06, 8367/08, 9872/09 and 11706/09, §§ 5-8, 3 May 2012.
B. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
5. In 1983 the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in Sarajevo.
6. On an unknown date in 1992 he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act 1990 and paid the full purchase price in the amount of 182,953 Yugoslav dinars (approximately 2,152 German marks (DEM) at the time).
7. When the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina on 19 May 1992, the applicant continued his military career in the VJ[1] forces and left Sarajevo. His military service was terminated in 1998.
8. On 29 January 1999 the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in Sarajevo. On 4 April 2001 his application was rejected pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998. On 23 November 2001 the competent Ministry of the Sarajevo Canton rejected his appeal as submitted out of time.
9. On 8 February 1999 the applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber (a domestic human-rights body set up under Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement) about his inability to repossess his pre-war flat. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
10. On 8 March 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant 1,000 convertible marks (BAM; approximately 500 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage in this connection. As regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Commission concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his “possessions” had been justified. However, it ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure the applicant’s right to compensation envisaged under section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997, without further delay and at the latest within three months from the delivery of that decision.
11. On the same date, the applicant initiated proceedings before the Sarajevo Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract and to register his title to the flat in the land register. On 1 October 2007 the Municipal Court declared the purchase contract legally valid. However, it rejected the applicant’s claim to have his title registered. The court held that under the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997 those who served in foreign armed forces after the 1992-95 war, like the present applicant, were not entitled to repossess their pre-war military flats and to register their title, but were entitled to compensation. On 19 November 2008 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court upheld that judgment.
12. On 28 December 2005 the Ministry of Defence of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina allocated the flat to M.H., a member of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13. On 4 December 2013 the Ministry for Defence of the Republic of Serbia informed the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that the applicant’s right to allocation of a military-flat in Serbia had been established by the competent authorities.
C. The circumstances of the case as presented by the Government
14. The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant. However, they provided additional information as follows.
15. On 19 April 2007 the applicant received BAM 15,979.68 (approximately EUR 8,170) in compensation for his pre‑war flat in Sarajevo in accordance with section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997, as ordered by the Commission for Human Rights (see paragraph 10 above).
D. Relevant domestic law and practice
16. The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Aleksić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 38233/05, §§ 16-18, 3 February 2015).
COMPLAINTS
17. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about his inability to have his pre-war flat in Sarajevo restored to him. He further alleged that the impugned situation amounted to an unnecessary interference with the right to respect for his home enshrined in Article 8. Lastly, the applicant complained about the outcome of the restitution proceedings under Article 6.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
18. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to provide all the facts relevant to his complaint. In particular, he had omitted to inform the Court about the compensation he had received for his pre-war flat. The Government suggested, therefore, that the applicant had abused his right of petition, and that accordingly, his application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
Furthermore, the Government submitted that, in any event, the application was manifestly ill-founded because the applicant’s right to a military flat in Serbia was established by the competent military authorities.
19. The applicant neither disputed the facts submitted by the Government nor provided any explanation for the failure to inform the Court about them.
20. The Court reiterates that the concept of “abuse” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention must be understood to mean any conduct on the part of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition as provided for in the Convention and that impedes the proper functioning of the Court, or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009). An application is likely to be dismissed on this ground if it has been established that (a) it is knowingly based on untrue facts and false declarations (see, for example, Drijfhout v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 51721/09, 22 February 2011; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; and Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007), or that (b) significant information and documents have been deliberately witheld, either where they were known from the outset (see Puusep v. Estonia (dec.), no. 67648/10, 7 January 2014, and Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006) or where new significant developments have occurred during the procedure (see Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013; Tatalović and Dekić v. Serbia, no. 15422/07, 29 May 2012; and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008).
21. 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 Khvichia and others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009; Predescu, cited above, §§ 25-26; and Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006).
22. Turning the present case, the Court notes that in his application lodged on 17 April 2009 the applicant complained about his inability to repossess his pre-war flat, while concealing the fact that almost two years before lodging the application he received compensation for that flat. Whether he considered the amount of compensation to be sufficient is of no relevance in these circumstances.
23. The applicant did not dispute the facts submitted by the Government; however, nor did he provide any explanation as to why they were omitted in the application and later submissions to the Court. This cannot be interpreted, in the Court’s view, as anything other than a failure to disclose information concerning the very core of the application (see Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010, and Bekauri v. Georgia (preliminary objection), no. 14102/02, §§ 21-25, 10 April 2012).
24. Having regard to the importance of the information withheld for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.
25. In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject this complaint as an abuse of the right of petition, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
26. The Court examined the applicant’s remaining complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 October 2015.
Fatoş AracıGuido Raimondi
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] The VJ forces, the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, were established on 20 May 1992. In 2006 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was succeeded by Serbia.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy