FOURTH SECTION
 
CASE OF KOŽUL AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 38695/13)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 October 2019
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kožul and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Iulia Antoanella Motoc, President,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 38695/13) 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”) by Mr Ivan Kožul, Mr Dinko Kožul, Mr Dražen Kožul, Mr Petar Kožul and Ms Ruža Kožul, nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the applicants”), on 20 April 2013. 2. The applicants represented themselves. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their then Deputy Agent, Ms S. Malešić. 3. On 10 July 2017 the Government were given notice of the complaints concerning Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1960, 1967, 1962, 1938 and 1939, respectively, and live in the vicinity of Široki Brijeg. 5. On 4 February 2002 the local authorities ordered a private company, Paškić d.o.o. Široki Brijeg (hereinafter “Paškić”), to demolish its industrial buildings which had been erected illegally next to the applicants’ homes. That decision became enforceable on 18 April 2002. 6. On 13 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial and ordered the local authorities concerned to enforce the decision of 4 February 2002 without further delay. It held that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 7. On 27 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that its decision of 13 October 2005 had not been enforced. 8. The local authorities have so far issued over thirty calls for tenders in order to find a company able and willing to demolish the buildings in issue, but to no avail. Moreover, they have imposed more than thirty fines on Paškić, in amounts ranging between 50 and 300 convertible marks (BAM)[1], because of its failure to comply with the demolition order. 9. On two occasions the competent public prosecutor carried out an investigation into the case (the non-enforcement of a decision of the Constitutional Court may constitute a criminal offence), but decided not to prosecute, first on 15 May 2007 and then again on 30 January 2017, because of lack evidence that the officials concerned had acted with criminal intent. 10. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (18 March 2019), the Constitutional Court’s decision remained unenforced. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 6 § 1 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicants complained that the non-enforcement of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 October 2005 had violated their rights under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
AdmissibilityThe Government’s objection that the application was lodged out of time

12. The Government maintained that the lodging of the application on 20 April 2013, more than eight years after the adoption of the Constitutional Court’s decision indicated a very passive approach on the part of the applicants, which had resulted in the expiry of the six-month time-limit for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 13. The applicants made no comment. 14. The Court reiterates that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides that the Court may only deal with a complaint which has been lodged within six months of the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as the non-enforcement of decisions of the Constitutional Court, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the continuing situation (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 159, ECHR 2009, and Sokolov and Others (dec.), nos. 30859/10 and 6 others, § 29, 14 January 2014). Also, in cases involving the execution of a final court decision, a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant decision or when an “objective impossibility” to enforce such decision is duly acknowledged (ibidem). 15. Since efforts were still being made with a view to enforcing the Constitutional Court’s decision when the present applicants lodged the application (see paragraph 8 above), the application was not introduced out of time (contrast Sokolov and Others, decision cited above, §§ 30-36). 16. The Government’s objection is therefore to be dismissed. Other grounds for inadmissibility
17. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor inadmissible on any other grounds. It accordingly declares it admissible.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation