Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7422/15
Haseda ŠKANDRO
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
Faris Vehabović,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms HasedaŠkandro, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1962 and lives in DonjiVakuf. She was represented before the Court by Ms H. Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik.
2. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Skalonjić.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The facts submitted by the applicant
4. On 24 December 2009 the Bugojno Municipal Court ordered the applicant’s employer, a company manufacturing weapons and military technology, to pay the applicant 3,957 convertible marks (approximately 2,020 euros) in respect of unpaid salaries. The judgment became final on 24 December 2009.
5. On 14 February 2011 the Travnik Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s winding-up petition because the Federal Ministry of Energy had refused authorisation (see paragraph 11 below). Consequently, in accordance with the 2003 Insolvency Act, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina became liable for the applicant’s employer’s debts (see paragraph 11 below).
6. On 11 October 2012 the Sarajevo Municipal Court issued an enforcement order.
2. The additional information provided by the Government
7. The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant. However, in their observations submitted on 16 January 2017 they provided additional information as follows.
8. On 17 March 2015 (decision no. AP 2892/13) the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the applicant’s and in 85 other cases on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour.
9. On 10 February 2016, following an objection submitted by the Attorney General of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and before the Government were given notice of the present application (7 September 2016), the Sarajevo Municipal Court annulled the enforcement order of 11 October 2012 (see paragraph 6 above) and terminated the enforcement proceedings.
10. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Sarajevo Cantonal Court. According to the latest information available to the Court (dated 5 April 2017), these proceedings were still ongoing.
B. Relevant domestic law
11. Section 5 of the 2003 Insolvency Act (Zakon o stečajnompostupku, Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 29/03, 32/04, 42/06 and 4/17), provides that a winding-up order may be made against the manufacturers of weapons and military technology with the authorisation of the Ministry of Energy only. If the Ministry refuses authorisation the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina becomes liable for the debts of the company.
COMPLAINT
12. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the order of 11 October 2012.
THE LAW
13. The Government argued that the application should be rejected as premature because the enforcement order had been annulled and the appeal proceedings before the Sarajevo Cantonal Court were still ongoing (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above).
14. The applicant did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government.
15. The Court does not find it necessary to decide on the Government’s objection because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
16. The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. An application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if it has been established that (a) it is knowingly based on untrue facts and false declarations (see Drijfhoutv. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 51721/09, § 29, 22 February 2011), or that (b) significant information and documents have been deliberately withheld, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments have occurred during the procedure (see Puusep v. Estonia (dec.), no. 67648/10, § 32, 7 January 2014, and Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
17. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, for example, Gross v. Switzerland[GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).Lastly, it cannot be the task of the Court, a body which was set up under the Convention to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties with respect to the Convention, to deal with a succession of ill-founded and querulous complaints, creating unnecessary work which is incompatible with its real functions (see Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 56551/11 and 10 others, 18 October 2011).
18. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that in her application the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the order of 11 October 2012, which had been annulled on 10 February 2016, before notice of the application was given to the Government (see paragraph 9 above). The applicant and her representative failed to disclose this information to the Court and, moreover, provided no explanation for this omission. As a consequence, the Court remained unaware of this fact until 16 January 2017, when the Government mentioned it in their observations (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above)
19. Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the application, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention, and significantly impeded the proper functioning of the Court. In addition, lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. BosniaandHerzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).
20. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the present application constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected 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 18 October 2018.
Andrea Tamietti Carlo Ranzoni
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply