FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
CASE OF MILISAVLJEVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
 
(Application no. 7435/04)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
3 March 2009
 
 
FINAL
 
03/06/2009
 
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision

In the case of Milisavljević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Nicolas Bratza, President,
 Lech Garlicki,
 Ljiljana Mijović,
 David Thór Björgvinsson,
 Ján Šikuta,
 Päivi Hirvelä,
 Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 February 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 7435/04) 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 three citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ms Tereza Milisavljević, Mr Miroslav Milisavljević and Mr Vladimir Milisavljević (“the applicants”), on 17 February 2004. 2. The applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr V. Marić, a lawyer practising in Mostar. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms Z. Ibrahimović. 3. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision of 7 May 2003 in the first applicant’s favour. 4. On 29 May 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants were born in 1947, 1973 and 1977 respectively. While the first applicant lives in Sarajevo, her sons, the second and the third applicants, live in Belgrade, in Serbia. 6. On 24 June 1983 the local authorities expropriated an apartment in Sarajevo which was occupied (but not owned) by the applicants. The local planning authorities were ordered to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment. This decision entered into force on 21 October 1983. 7. On 6 April 1987 the first applicant initiated court proceedings seeking the allocation to her by the local planning authorities of a suitable replacement apartment. 8. On 29 April 1998 the Sarajevo First Municipal Court held that, while it was clear that the local planning authorities were required to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment, the courts of law had no power to designate such an apartment. The Sarajevo First Municipal Court, consequently, declined jurisdiction. This decision entered into force on 31 March 1999 when the Sarajevo Cantonal Court upheld it. 9. On 24 November 1999 the first applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber about non-enforcement of the administrative decision of 24 June 1983. 10. On 7 May 2003 the Human Rights Chamber found breaches of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a constituent Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate, to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment at the latest within one month. The Human Rights Chamber awarded the first applicant, in pecuniary damage, 18,200 convertible marks (BAM) (approximately 9,300 euros (EUR)) plus BAM 200 (approximately EUR 100) per month from June 2003 until the end of the month in which she was to be allocated a suitable replacement apartment. She was further awarded BAM 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,550) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, she was awarded default interest on the above amounts at an annual rate of 10%. This decision entered into force on 4 September 2003. 11. On 24 March 2005 the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of an apartment in Sarajevo. On 31 March 2005 the applicant rejected the offer. 12. On 1 July 2005 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina paid the following amounts to the first applicant: BAM 18,200 in respect of pecuniary damage, BAM 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and default interest on the above amounts at the rate indicated in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision. 13. On 15 September 2005 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the interpretation of the order to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate, to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment set out in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision. 14. On 15 December 2005 the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber, the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, explained that in accordance with the Human Rights Chamber’s decision the first applicant should be given ownership of a suitable apartment and not only a tenancy. 15. On 19 September 2006 the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of the same apartment as on 24 March 2005. The applicant has not accepted the offer. 16. On 8 November 2006 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint against the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina (non-enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of the Human Rights Chamber constitutes a criminal offence). It would appear that no decision has been taken in that regard. 17. On 13 March 2008 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina paid an additional amount of BAM 10,069.76 to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage (that is, BAM 200 per month for the period from June 2003 until September 2006 plus default interest on those monthly amounts at the rate indicated in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision). II. RELEVANT LAW AND PRACTICE
18. The relevant law and practice were outlined in Karanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 39462/03, §§ 13-15, 20 November 2007) also concerning the non-enforcement of a Human Rights Chamber’s decision. THE LAW
19. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of the Human Rights Chamber in the first applicant’s favour. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Article 6, in so far as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows:
“Every 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. 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.”
I. ADMISSIBILITY
20. The Government maintained that the applicants had failed to raise their complaints before the domestic courts. Furthermore, they submitted that the second and the third applicants could not claim to be victims of the alleged breaches because they were not parties to the domestic proceedings. 21. The applicants repudiated the first objection without going into detail and declined to comment on the second objection. 22. The Court has previously established that there was no effective domestic remedy for complaints about the non-enforcement of the decisions of the Human Rights Chamber (see Karanović, cited above, § 19). The first objection of the Government is thus dismissed. 23. As regards the second objection, the Court agrees with the Government. Since the instant case concerns non-enforcement of a domestic decision in the first applicant’s favour, the second and the third applicants do not have the requisite standing under Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Teteriny v. Russia, no. 11931/03, §§ 27-30, 30 June 2005). This part of the application must hence be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4. 24. The first applicant’s grievances are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. The Court further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. This part of the application must therefore be declared admissible. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
25. In their submissions on the merits, the Government criticised the impugned decision of the Human Rights Chamber. In their opinion, there was no basis in domestic law for the order of the Human Rights Chamber that the first applicant be given ownership of a suitable replacement apartment. The Government maintained that she should have been granted a mere tenancy. 26. The Court recalls that one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law is the principle of legal certainty, which requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999‑VII and Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41183/02, § 44, ECHR 2006‑...). 27. In the present case, it is clear that more than five years have passed since the domestic decision at issue became final and that the first applicant has not yet been given ownership of a suitable apartment and has not yet received full compensation (she should still receive BAM 200 per month for the period from October 2006 until the end of the month in which she is to be allocated a suitable replacement apartment plus default interest on those monthly amounts).

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation