FOURTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 7416\/15
\nDervo KARA\u0160IN
\nagainst Bosnia and Herzegovina<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25\u00a0September 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Carlo Ranzoni, President,
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2015,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr DervoKara\u0161in, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1963 and lives in Bugojno. He was represented before the Court by Ms H. Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Skalonji\u0107.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1. The facts submitted by the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 June 2006 the Bugojno Municipal Court ordered the applicant\u2019s employer, a company manufacturing weapons and military technology, to pay the applicant 6,788 convertible marks (approximately 3,420 euros) in respect of unpaid salaries together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs. The judgment became final on 22 July 2007.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 February 2011 the Travnik Municipal Court rejected the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s employer\u2019s debts (see paragraph 11 below).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 May 2012 the Sarajevo Municipal Court issued an enforcement order.<\/p>\n 2. The additional information provided by the Government<\/em><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant. However, they provided additional information as follows.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 April 2007 the applicant and his employer settled the case before the Bugojno Municipal Court.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 December 2012 the Attorney General of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a request with the Sarajevo Municipal Court for the termination of the enforcement proceedings (see paragraph\u00a06\u00a0above) in view of the fact that the case had been settled. It would appear that these proceedings are still ongoing.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2015 (decision no. AP 2892\/13) the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (\u201cthe Constitutional Court\u201d) found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01\u00a0to the Convention in the applicant\u2019s and in 85 other cases on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. It would appear that the Constitutional Court was not aware that the applicant\u2019s case had been settled.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Section 5 of the 2003 Insolvency Act (Zakon o ste\u010dajnompostupku, 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.<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 21 June 2006.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant had already settled the case and that his application should be rejected as premature because the proceedings concerning the Attorney General\u2019s request were still ongoing (see paragraph 9 above).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0The Court does not find it necessary to decide on the Government\u2019s objection because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 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.),\u00a0no.\u00a051721\/09, \u00a7 29, 22\u00a0February 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.\u00a067648\/10, \u00a7 32, 7 January 2014, and Komatinovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no.\u00a075381\/10, 29\u00a0January\u00a02013).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Incomplete 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.\u00a067810\/10, \u00a7 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 Petrovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), nos.\u00a056551\/11 and 10\u00a0others, 18\u00a0October 2011).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant had settled the case with his employer on 27 April 2007 (see paragraph 8 above). This information had neither been disclosed in the application lodged with the Court on 30\u00a0January 2015 nor later during the proceedings. The applicant and his representative did not provide any explanation for this omission.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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\u2019s 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 willful or negligent misuse of the Court\u2019s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers\u2019 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 \u00a7 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevan\u010devi\u0107 v. BosniaandHerzegovina (dec.), no. 67618\/09, \u00a7 29, 10 January 2017).<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0In 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 \u00a7 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.<\/p>\n Andrea Tamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Carlo Ranzoni
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n