FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BEĆIRBEGOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Applications nos. 57137/19 and 11 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 April 2021
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bećirbegović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Armen Harutyunyan, President,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 March 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications 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”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms A. Jugo Kišija, a lawyer practising in Travnik. 3. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications on 30 April 2020. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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 OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which 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 1 of Protocol No. 1
“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.”
Application no. 60212/19 in respect of the decision of the Sarajevo Municipal Court of 3 February 2016
8. The Government informed the Court that the applicant had reached a friendly settlement with the relevant authorities in respect of the decision of the Sarajevo Municipal Court of 3 February 2016, giving up on default interest and accepting that the payment of the principal debt and the costs would constitute the final resolution of the case. The principal debt and the costs had then been paid on the date indicated in the appended table. The applicant did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government. The Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine in respect of that domestic decision. 9. Accordingly, that part of application no. 60212/19 should be struck out of the list. Application no. 60212/19 in respect of the decision of the Sarajevo Municipal Court of 26 December 2014 and all other applications
10. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 11. In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017 and Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, §§ 26-31, 14 November 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 14.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation