Last Updated on June 9, 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 13 May 2020.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ŠABANOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 24139/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Šabanović 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 19 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 13 May 2020.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr H. Salkanović, a lawyer practising in Živinice.
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 non-enforcement of a domestic decision.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour. He relied, expressly or in substance, 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 fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
8. In the leading cases of Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, ECHR 2006-XII, and Jakovljević and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 51227/16, 23 July 2019, 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour.
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, Jeličić, cited above, and Jakovljević, also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
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 non-enforcement of a domestic decision;
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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 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
(non-enforcement of domestic decisions)
| Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Relevant domestic decision | Start date of non‑enforcement period | End date of non‑enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings |
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros)[1] [2] |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros)[3] |
| 24139/20 13/05/2020 |
Nusret ŠABANOVIĆ 1962 |
Haris Salkanović Živinice |
Tuzla Municipal Court 14/11/2014 |
11/02/2015 | pending more than 7 years, 1 month and 20 days |
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