FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KAROVIĆ AND OTHERS 
v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Applications nos. 43201/22 and 3 others – see appended list)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Non-enforcement of domestic court decisions against the Sarajevo Canton • Acceptable enforcement plan adopted by the Canton setting a time frame for the enforcement of all domestic decisions against it
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
24 June 2025
 
FINAL
 
24/09/2025
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Lado Chanturia, President,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Tim Eicke,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Anne Louise Bormann,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 43201/22, 555/23, 5241/23 and 23976/23) 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 four nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Zlatan Karović, Mr Tarik Kršlak, Ms Vanja Bradarić and Mr Osman Šabanović (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning non-enforcement of domestic decisions under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 May and 3 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last‑mentioned date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applications concern the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour against the Sarajevo Canton (one of the ten cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). The applicants invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. 3. The Government were represented by their acting Agent, Ms M. Mijić. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. By judgments delivered by the Sarajevo Municipal Court on 5 and 19 February 2015, 24 February 2017 and 23 April 2018, the Sarajevo Canton was ordered to pay the applicants various sums in respect of unpaid work-related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs. The writs of execution were issued by the same court on 19 February 2021, 5 May 2016, 5 July 2017 and 13 June 2018 respectively. 6. On 12 January 2022 the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of one of the applicants, Mr Šabanović, ordered the Sarajevo Canton to take the necessary steps to secure the enforcement of the decision in his favour and to pay him 300 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 7. On 13 January 2022 the Sarajevo Canton adopted an enforcement plan in respect of all domestic decisions against it (published in the Official Gazette of the Sarajevo Canton no. 4/22). It provided that those who renounced their claims for default interest and legal costs would be paid their principal claims without delay. As regards those who did not agree to that arrangement, such as the applicants in the present case, it was provided that the decisions in their favour would be enforced in chronological order within five years (that is, by the end of 2026) and that up to 0.8% of the total budget would be designated for those purposes. It also provided that the Sarajevo Canton reserved the right not to adhere to the plan if it were to be allocated fewer funds in the future. 8. On 6 April 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected the case of another of the applicants, Mr Karović, on the grounds that the enforcement plan of the Sarajevo Canton was acceptable. 9. According to the available information, the decisions concerning the applicants have not yet been enforced. As of 31 December 2024, the applicants held the following places in the chronological order of decisions against the Sarajevo Canton which remained to be enforced: 1,017 (Mr Šabanović); 2,299 (Ms Bradarić); 3,092 (Mr Karović); and 5,797 (Mr Kršlak). THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
11. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Article 6 § 1, 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.”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

12. The Government maintained that the applications of Mr Kršlak and Ms Bradarić were inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because they had failed to use a constitutional appeal. 13. Mr Kršlak and Ms Bradarić submitted that a constitutional appeal was not an effective remedy for their complaints.

Outcome for Article P1-1: no_violation