FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SANTRAČ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 13501/24)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
29 January 2026
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Santrač v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Sebastian Răduleţu,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,
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 25 April 2024. 2. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision issued in her favour against the City of Bihać. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
5. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in her favour and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 6. 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). 7. 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. 8. The Court further notes that the domestic court decision in the present application ordered the City of Bihać to pay the applicant 18,000 convertible marks (BAM) (approximately 9,205 euros (EUR)) (plus default interest rate) as compensation for material damage (for further details see the appended table). The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 9. 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 decision in the applicant’s favour. 10.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation