FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 2333/04
by Milenko VIŠNJEVAC
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milenko Višnjevac, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1938 and lives in Sarajevo.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) the applicant deposited foreign currency in his bank account at the then office of a Slovenian bank in Sarajevo (Ljubljanska banka Glavna filijala Sarajevo). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former SFRY, such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings (for the relevant background information see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-...).
Following several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw his funds, the applicant initiated court proceedings against the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo (at the relevant time, the legal successor of the Ljubljanska banka Glavna filijala Sarajevo).
On 22 November 1993 the Sarajevo Court of First Instance ordered the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo to pay to the applicant, within 8 days, the full sum in his account (2,000 German marks[1]), which amount included accrued interest. Default interest and legal costs were not awarded. The judgment entered into force on 19 January 1994.
After the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo had failed to execute the judgment voluntarily, on 27 April 1999 the competent court issued an execution writ. It entered into force on 20 December 2001.
Meanwhile, the applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Chamber (the human-rights body set up by Annex 6 to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace).
On 7 October 2002 the Human Rights Chamber found a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to that Convention arising from a failure to enforce the judgment of 22 November 1993. The Human Rights Chamber held the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina responsible and ordered it to ensure full enforcement by 11 January 2003. The applicant was also awarded 1,000 Bosnian markas (BAM)[2] for non-pecuniary damage and BAM 200[3] for legal costs.
On 30 June 2003 the Human Rights Chamber, in a further decision, decided that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina should pay the judgment debt instead of the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo. The applicant was also awarded an additional amount of BAM 2,000[4].
The judgment debt (approximately 1,020 euros) and damages and legal costs awarded by the Human Rights Chamber (in total approximately 1,640 euros) have subsequently been paid to the applicant. The applicant has thus received approximately 2,660 euros in all. He has not indicated the date of the payment.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice see the Jeličić decision cited above.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a failure to enforce a final and enforceable judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
Article 6, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
“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.”
It is the Court’s settled case-law that where national authorities have acknowledged, at least in substance, a breach of the Convention and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the applicant concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 193, ECHR 2006‑...).
The judgment, which is in issue in the present case, has eventually been enforced, the competent domestic body has expressly acknowledged a breach of the Convention and it has afforded redress for that breach. The Court considers the sums awarded (approximately 1,640 euros for damage and legal costs in addition to approximately 1,020 euros in respect of the principal debt) to constitute appropriate and sufficient redress.
In these circumstances, even assuming that Bosnia and Herzegovina can be held responsible for any problems in connection with savings deposited in the former Ljubljanska banka Glavna filijala Sarajevo (see, mutatis mutandis, Kovačić, Mrkonjić and Golubović v. Slovenia (dec.), nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, 9 October 2003), the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged breach. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Approximately 1,020 euros.
[2] Approximately 510 euros.
[3] Approximately 100 euros.
[4] Approximately 1,020 euros.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy