FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BRULIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 702/22)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
8 June 2023
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Brulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Tim Eicke, President,
 Branko Lubarda,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application 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 23 December 2021. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms I. Muhović, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo. 3. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision issued in his favour against the Sarajevo Canton. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 7. 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). 8. The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 9. 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. 10. 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. Notably, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the compatibility ratione personae of the application, since the Constitutional Court has found that the Sarajevo Canton is liable for the judgment debt at issue and should therefore pay it from its own funds. 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 decision in the applicant’s favour. 11.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation