Last Updated on May 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The case originated in an application 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 21 October 2020.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ŽILIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 49551/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 May 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Žilić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Jolien Schukking,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application 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 21 October 2020.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr B. Božić, a lawyer practising in Travnik.
3. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of administrative proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …”
7. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
8. In the leading cases of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 134-227, ECHR 2006-V, and Dorić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 68811/13, §§ 14-16, 7 November 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Scordino, cited above, §§ 260-73, and Dorić, also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
13. The Court further 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,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 May 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil and/or administrative proceedings)
| Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Start of proceedings | End of proceedings | Total length Levels of jurisdiction |
Domestic award in respect of non-pecuniary damage (in euros) | Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1][2] | Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[3] |
| 49551/20 21/10/2020 |
Drago ŽILIĆ 1959 |
Božić Bruno Travnik |
20/03/2007 | 21/02/2018 | 10 years, 11 months and 2 days 2 levels of jurisdiction |
Constitutional Court 06/05/2020 421 |
3,600 | 250 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.
[3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply