FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF AVDI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
\n(Application no. 47345\/15 and 40 others –
\nsee appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Avdi\u0107 and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Georges Ravarani, President,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 17 January 2019,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in applications against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by Ms H. Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina(\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE6 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in theirfavour.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and on Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01, which read as follows:<\/p>\n
Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n
\u201cEvery 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.<\/p>\n
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.\u201d<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a \u201chearing\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a06. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.\u00a0Greece, no.\u00a018357\/91, \u00a7\u00a040, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II).<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading cases of Spahi\u0107 and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514\/15 and 15 others, \u00a7\u00a7 25-31, 14 November 2017, and Kuni\u0107 and\u00a0Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955\/12 and 15 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a026\u201131, 14 November 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute \u201cpossessions\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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 decisions in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n
III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n
\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Spahi\u0107 and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514\/15 and 15 others, \u00a7\u00a7 36-43, 14 November 2017, and Kuni\u0107 and\u00a0Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955\/12 and 15 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a037\u201146, 14 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court 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.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe applications admissible;<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n
(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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;<\/p>\n
(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 February 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
LivTigerstedt\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Georges Ravarani
\nActing Deputy 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)<\/p>\n