FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF MILINKOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
 
(Application no. 21175/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
8 July 2014
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Milinković v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 George Nicolaou, President,
 Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
 Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 21175/13) 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 a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Dragan Milinković (“the applicant”), on 13 February 2013. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms R. Plavšić, a lawyer practising in Banja Luka. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić. 3. The case is, like Momić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 1441/07 et al., 15 January 2013, about the non-enforcement of a final and enforceable domestic judgment which falls under a special legal regime of the Republika Srpska’s general obligations. 4. On 7 May 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. 5. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
6. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Banja Luka. 7. By a judgment of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 23 February 2009 which became final on 11 May 2009, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, 34,000 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate and BAM 4,667 in respect of legal costs together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant. 8. The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 29 June 2009. 9. The applicant complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 10. The final judgment in favour of the applicant remains unenforced to this day. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
11. The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Momić and Others (cited above, §§ 11-13). THE LAW
12. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the judgement indicated in paragraph 7 above. He 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 or property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
A. Admissibility
13. The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention nor inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. B. Merits
14. While the applicant invited the Court to apply the Čolić and Others jurisprudence (see Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 1218/07 et al., 10 November 2009) to his case, the Government sought to distinguish between the two cases. They maintained that the final judgment in the present case did not fall into the category of war damage, but instead represented general obligations of the Republika Srpska which were paid in cash in accordance with the relevant settlement plan. The Government further submitted that due to the size of the Republika Srpska’s public debt, postponement in the enforcement was justified, as otherwise macroeconomic stability and fiscal sustainability would be jeopardised. 15. The Court notes that the present case is practically identical to Momić and Others (cited above) in which it found a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Since the final judgment under consideration in the present case has not yet been enforced and the situation has already lasted more than five years, the Court does not see any reason to depart from its previous case-law.

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