ZRNIĆ A OSTATNÍ proti Bosně a Hercegovině

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 75581/11
Brane ZRNIĆ and others against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Faris Vehabović, judges,

and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged between 8 November 2011 and 7 February 2013,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, 20 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are: Mr Brane Zrnić, Mr Dušan Zrnić, Mr Slavko Zrnić, Mr Rade Ilinčić, Ms Đuka Bogdanović, Mr Vlastimir Barbarez, Ms Gordana Nikolić, Ms Brankica Nikolić, Ms Danica Nikolić, Ms Ankica Lazić, Mr Dragoljub Dragičević, Ms Jilduza Zembo, Mr Nenad Radovančević, Mr Saša Predragović, Mr Goran Rogić, Mr Zdravko Crnobrnja, Mr Boro Mihajlović Mr Milorad Milosavljević, Ms Jelena Dakić and Ms Radojka Momić.

Mr Brane Zrnić, Mr Dušan Zrnić, Mr Slavko Zrnić, Mr Rade Ilinčić, Ms Đuka Bogdanović, Ms Gordana Nikolić, Ms Brankica Nikolić, Ms Danica Nikolić and Ms Ankica Lazić were represented by Mr Đorđe Marić, a lawyer practising in Banja Luka. Mr Vlastimir Barbarez and Mr Dragoljub Dragičević were represented by Mr Dragomir Prerad and Mr Miroslav Prerad, lawyers practising in Banja Luka. Mr Saša Prerdragović, Mr Goran Rogić, Mr Zdravko Crnobrnja, Mr Boro Mihajlović Mr Milorad Milosavljević and Ms Radojka Momić were represented by Ms Radmila Plavšić, a lawyer practising in Banja Luka.

The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.

The case is, like Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 1218/07 et al., 10 November 2009 and Runić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 28735/06 et al., 5 November 2011, about the non-enforcement of final and enforceable domestic judgments awarding war damages to the applicants.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

By 14 judgments of different courts of first instance of 12 June 2000, 30 May 2001, 9 March 2000, 7 February 2000, 22 August 2001, 15 April 2004, 20 May 1999, 1 November 1999, 14 November 2001, 30 May 2002, 25 June 2001, 28 March 2000, 27 March 2002 and 14 April 2000, which became final on 8 April 2002, 12 July 2001, 5 February 2001, 25 May 2000, 23 April 2002, 30 September 2009, 3 November 2000, 3 July 2000, 10 November 2004, 12 may 2005, 25 November 2003, 4 February 2002, 18 November 2004 and 18 December 2001, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:

1. BAM 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 3,300 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 4,368 in respect of legal costs to the Zrnićs;
2. BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage , BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,425 in respect of legal costs to Mr Ilinčić and Ms Bogdanović;
3. BAM 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 933 in respect of legal costs to Mr Barbarez;
4. BAM 18,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,369 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Nikolićs and Ms Lazić;
5. BAM 37,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 555 in respect of legal costs to Mr Dragičević;
6. BAM 5,558 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,909 in respect of legal costs to Ms Zembo;
7. BAM 10,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 103 in respect of legal costs to Mr Radovančević;
8. BAM 33,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,755 in respect of legal costs to Mr Predragović;
9. BAM 17,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 630 in respect of legal costs to Mr Rogić;
10. BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 768 in respect of legal costs to Mr Crnobrnja;
11. BAM 21,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,406 in respect of legal costs to Mr Mihajlović;
12. BAM 13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 830 in respect of legal costs to Mr Milosavljević;
13. BAM 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 300 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 564 in respect of legal costs to Ms Dakić;
14. BAM 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,150 in respect of legal costs to Ms Momić.

The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 4 September 2002, 16 November 2001, 16 May 2001, 11 April 2001, 5 July 2002, 22 February 2010, 18 June 2001, 19 September 2000, 26 January 2005, 11 July 2005, 4 February 2004, 12 April 2002, 31 August 2006 and 6 February 2003, respectively.

The applicants, except for Mr Barbarez, Mr Dragičević and Ms Dakić, complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On different dates the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of the Zrnićs, Mr Ilinčić and Ms Bogdanović, the Nikolićs and Ms Lazić, Ms Zembo, Mr Radovančević, Mr Predragović, Mr Rogić, Mr Crnobrnja, Mr Mihajlović and Mr Milosavljević. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, §195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, §79; AP 224/08 of 8 December 2010, §37).

After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 19 March 2008 and 17 April 2012 the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates:

1. on 15 December 2008 to the Zrnićs and the application was lodged on 8 November 2011;
2. on 15 December 2008 to Mr Ilinčić and Ms Bogdanović and the application was lodged on 8 November 2011;
3. on 30 October 2009 to Mr Barbarez and the application was lodged on10 February 2012;
4. on 15 December 2008 to the Nikolićs and Ms Lazić and the application was lodged on 3 January 2012;
5. on 30 October 2009 to Mr Dragičević and the application was lodged on 16 January 2012;
6. on 15 June 2010 to Ms Zembo and the application was lodged on 10 May 2012;
7. on 30 October 2009 to Mr Radovančević and the application was lodged on 19 June 2012;
8. on 30 June 2008 to Mr Predragović and the application was lodged on 17 May 2012;
9. on 15 December 2008 to Mr Rogić and the application was lodged on 17 May 2012;
10. on 9 June 2011 to Mr Crnobrnja and the application was lodged on 17 May 2012;
11. on 30 June 2008 to Mr Mihajlović and the application was lodged on 5 December 2012;
12. on 30 June 2008 to Mr Milosavljević and the application was lodged on 5 December 2012;
13. on 30 October 2009 to Ms Dakić and the application was lodged on 18 September 2012;
14. on 30 September 2009 to Ms Momić and the application was lodged on 7 February 2013.

Mr Ilinčić, Mr Barbarez, Mr Dragičević, Mr Rogić, Ms Dakić and Ms Momić have already sold some or all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Čolić and Others (cited above, §§ 10-12) and Runić and Others (cited above, § 11).

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the judgements indicated above. The case was examined by the Court under 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.”

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

Given their common factual and legal background, the Court decides that these 14 applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

II. ADMISSIBILITY

The Government argued that the present applications were submitted outside of the six-month time-limit.

The applicants disagreed.

The Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote security of the law and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time. The rule also affords the prospective applicant time to consider whether to lodge an application and, if so, to decide on the specific complaints and arguments to be raised (see, for example, Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, §§ 32-33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V). Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as the non-enforcement of final and enforceable domestic judgments in the present cases, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the continuing situation (see Ülke v. Turkey (dec.) no. 39437/98, 24 January 2006).

Furthermore, in Runić and Others (cited above, § 15, in which the applicants, like in the present case, had accepted government bonds in lieu of cash as means of enforcement) the Court held that domestic judgments ordering payment of war damage had been fully enforced by the issuance of government bonds.

Therefore, having in mind the dates of enforcement of domestic judgments in question (as indicated above) it is clear that they have been submitted outside of the six-month time-limit.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule. The applications must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä
Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

[1] The convertible mark uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro that the German mark has: EUR 1 = Ban 1.95583.