5.  On 22 December 1998 the first applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Sarajevo Municipal Court, seeking damages against the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation”) for goods seized during the 1992-95 war.
6.  On 10 May 2007 the Sarajevo Municipal Court ordered the Federation to pay the first applicant 521,556.20 convertible marks (BAM – approximately 266,370 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage, together with default interest at the statutory rate from April 1992, and legal costs, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Obligations Act of 1978.
7.  On 23 January 2009 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court allowed the Federation’s appeal in part and amended the judgment of 10 May 2007 in respect of the part concerning default interest. It ordered that the interest should be calculated from February 1996. The rest of the first-instance judgment was upheld and it became final on the same day.
8.  On an unspecified date the Federation lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Supreme Court”) against the judgment of 23 January 2009. On 10 June 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held, in particular, that the Sarajevo Cantonal Court had correctly applied the Civil Obligations Act of 1978 as regards default interest.
9.  On 4 March 2009 the Sarajevo Municipal Court issued an enforcement order. The enforcement was to be carried out at the debtor’s expense.
10.  On 28 May 2009 the Sarajevo Municipal Court dismissed the debtor’s objection and upheld the enforcement order of 4 March 2009.
11.  On 16 March 2010 the debtor’s bank informed the enforcement court that the applicant had received BAM 24,244.78 in respect of legal costs.
13.  On 28 January 2013 the Sarajevo Municipal Court requested information from the bank about the status of the enforcement.
14.  On 14 February 2013 the bank informed the Sarajevo Municipal Court that it did not consider that the enforcement order of 4 March 2009 had been fully implemented (because the interest due had not been paid).
15.  On 17 August 2010 the first applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”), complaining about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 10 May 2007.
16.  On 7 November and 13 December 2012 the first applicant informed the Constitutional Court that the principal debt had been paid on 9 December 2011 but that the default interest remained unsettled.
17.  Invited to submit their comments on the first applicant’s appeal, the Federal Ministry of Finance argued that the War Damage Act of 2001 had declared that war damage constituted a part of public debt to which default interest did not apply. Thus, there was no legal basis for the payment of default interest to the first applicant.
18.  On 12 June 2013 the Constitutional Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings. It ordered the Municipal Court to conclude the enforcement proceedings without delay. However, the Constitutional Court did not examine the issue of the amount of default interest.
In so far as relevant to the case before the Court, its reasoning was as follows:
“39.  ... from the material in the case file it is evident that the impugned enforcement proceedings were not (i) completed or (ii) terminated by means of a final procedural decision rejecting the appellant’s request for the enforcement. Moreover, they were not suspended for any of the reasons prescribed by the Enforcement Procedure Act of 2003 ... Under the Enforcement Procedure Act of 2003, the enforcement court’s duty does not end once an enforcement order has been issued and delivered to the competent authority for enforcement. 40.  Therefore, the failure of the Municipal Court to ... terminate the enforcement proceedings in one of the ways prescribed by [the Enforcement Procedure Act of 2003] ... without any justification based on the relevant law has led to an unlawful interference with the appellant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article II/3.k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.”
19.  Neither the judgment of 10 May 2007 (the amount due in respect of default interest) nor the Constitutional Court’s decision of 12 June 2013 has been fully enforced until the present day according to the last available information.
21.  On 5 June 2001 the second applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Orašje Municipal Court, seeking damages against the Federation in respect for property owned by him that had been destroyed during the 1992-95 war.
22.  On 28 May 2007 the Orašje Municipal Court ordered the Federation to pay the second applicant BAM 70,000 (approximately EUR 35,260) in respect of pecuniary damage, together with default interest at the statutory rate from April 2003 and legal costs, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Obligations Act of 1978.
24.  On 14 November 2007 the second applicant lodged a request for the enforcement of the judgment of 28 May 2007 with the Orašje Municipal Court.
25.  On 14 December 2007 the Orašje Municipal Court issued an enforcement order. The enforcement was to be carried out at the debtor’s expense.
26.  On 13 February 2008 the court dismissed the debtor’s objection and upheld the enforcement order of 14 December 2007.
27.  On 26 October 2009 the second applicant was issued government bonds in lieu of cash in respect of the principal debt, in accordance with the Domestic Debt Act of 2004 (see paragraph 42 below).
29.  On 10 December 2010 the bank informed the Orašje Municipal Court that it could not make any payments from the debtor’s account without the approval of the Federal Ministry of Finance.
30.  On 4 November 2011 the Federal Ministry of Finance informed the second applicant that, in accordance with the amendments to the Domestic Debt Act of 2004 (see paragraph 42 below), he would receive payment in cash for the nominal value of those of his government bonds with which he had not traded on the stock exchange market, reduced by the amount paid in respect of the interest earned on bonds.
31.  On 5 December 2011 the second applicant received BAM 66,499.98 in respect of the principal debt. The second applicant acknowledged that that payment had fully settled the principal debt.
32.  On 17 May 2012 the Orašje Municipal Court partially suspended the enforcement proceedings in view of the payments made in 2010 and 2011.
33.  On 12 June 2012 the Ministry of Finance informed the Orašje Municipal Court that the judgment of 28 May 2007 had been fully enforced as regards the principal debt and legal costs, and that there was no legal basis for the payment of default interest.
34.  On 5 April 2013 the Orašje Municipal Court instructed the second applicant to bring a civil action for damages against the bank under the ordinary rules of tort law for failure to comply with the execution order of 14 December 2007 and to fully enforce the judgment of 28 May 2007.
35.  On 2 April 2014 the Orašje Municipal Court amended the execution order of 14 December 2007 in respect of the means of enforcement in that it ordered that the enforcement be executed with funds in accounts held by the debtor in two different banks.
36.  On 3 January 2009 the second applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 28 May 2007.
37.  On 8 June 2011 the Constitutional Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the case of the second applicant and in three other cases on account of the excessive delay in the enforcement in respect of each case. It also held that the enforcement schedule under the Domestic Debt Act of 2004, which at the time stipulated that final judgments should be enforced by the payment of war damages in governments bonds in lieu of cash, had placed a disproportionate burden on the appellants. In its reasoning the Constitutional Court referred to its earlier decisions concerning the same matter. It ordered the Federation to enforce the final judgments in question without further delay.
38.  On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court concluded that its decision of 8 June 2011 had been enforced.
39.  The judgment of 28 May 2007 (the amount due in respect of default interest), however, has not been hitherto fully enforced.