CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s165D87C7 { width:21.45pt; display:inline-block } .s301E5582 { width:146.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA160E30D { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s718EF5E3 { width:26.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD07F8C28 { width:20.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s78A0ABB8 { width:43.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF3B7830 { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560FF069 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC591AD9A { width:26.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C46F363 { width:20.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEC2B05BB { width:43.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:6pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3927/15 Nahida ČALUK against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 63 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, 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 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The first applicant, Ms Čaluk, was represented by Mr A. Lozo, a lawyer practising in Travnik. The remaining applicants were represented by Ms H. Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   B. Skalonjić. A.     The circumstances of the cases 3.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The facts submitted by the applicants 4.     By 67 judgments of the Travnik Municipal Court and the Bugojno Municipal Court, the applicants’ employers, various public companies, were ordered to pay them different sums in respect of unpaid work-related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs. The judgments became final between 19 December 2003 and 27   December 2012. 5.     The applicants’ winding-up petitions were rejected on 27 May 2010 and 14 February 2011, respectively, because the Federal Ministry of Energy had refused authorisation (see paragraph 13 below). Consequently, in accordance with the 2003 Insolvency Act, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina became liable for the debts of the applicants’ employers (see paragraph 13 below). 6.     The Sarajevo Municipal Court issued enforcement orders between 10   October 2011 and 27 February 2013, in which the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was designated as a debtor. They were transferred to the competent bank and were listed among the charges in the federal budget. 7.     On several occasions thereafter the bank informed the competent courts that enforcement was not possible because the budgetary funds intended for that purpose had already been spent. 2.     The additional information provided by the Government 8.     The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicants. However, they provided additional information as follows. 9.     Between 2 July 2013 and 27 November 2014 the applicants complained of the non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). 10 .     On 17 March 2015 (decision no. AP 2892/13) the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the applicants’ cases on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. It ordered the government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to take the necessary steps in order to secure the payment of its debt arising from the final judgments within a reasonable time. 11 .     Subsequently, between 16 July 2015 and 25 July 2016, and before the Government were given notice of the present applications (7   September   2016), the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully enforced. B.     Relevant domestic law 12.     The 2003 Enforcement Procedure Act ( Zakon o izvršnom postupku , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“OG FBH”), nos. 32/03, 52/03, 33/06, 39/06, 39/09, 35/12 and 46/16) provides for the limitation of enforcement of final judgments against the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the cantons: these will be enforced only within the amount of funds provided for that purpose in the federal and cantonal budgets which cannot be lower than 0,3% of the total budget (section 138 (3) and (6)). The enforcement will be carried out in a chronological order according to the time the judgments became final. The statutory prescription period does not apply to these claims (section 138   (5)). 13 .     Section 5 of the 2003 Insolvency Act ( Zakon o stečajnom postupku , OG FBH, nos. 29/03, 32/04, 42/06 and 4/17), provides that a winding-up order may be made against the manufacturers of weapons and military technology with the authorisation of the Ministry of Energy only. If the Ministry refuses authorisation the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina becomes liable for the debts of the company. COMPLAINT 14.     The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1   of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce the final court decisions given in their favour. THE LAW 15.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to order their joinder (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). 16.     The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgments in their favour had been fully enforced. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the applications as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 17.     The applicants did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government. They argued instead that they had intended to inform the Court about the new developments in their reply to the Government’s observations. 18.     The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. An application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if it has been established that (a) it is knowingly based on untrue facts and false declarations (see Drijfhout v . the Netherlands (dec.),   no.   51721/09, § 29, 22 February 2011), or that (b) significant information and documents have been deliberately withheld, either where they were known from the outset (see Puusep v. Estonia (dec.), no.   67648/10, § 32, 7 January 2014) or where new significant developments have occurred during the procedure (see Komatinović v. Serbia (dec.), no.   75381/10, 29   January   2013). 19.     Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, for example, Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no.   67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014). Lastly, it cannot be the task of the Court, a body which was set up under the Convention to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties with respect to the Convention, to deal with a succession of ill-founded and querulous complaints, creating unnecessary work which is incompatible with its real functions (see Petrović v. Serbia (dec.), nos.   56551/11 and 10   others, 18   October 2011). 20.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that following the decision of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 10   above), the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were fully enforced between 16   July   2015 and 25 July 2016 (see paragraph 11 above). The applicants, however, did not inform the Court about that development. The Court notes that the enforcement occurred before notice of the applications was given to the Government and that no convincing explanation for this omission was provided. 21.     Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the applications, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention, and significantly impeded the proper functioning of the Court. In addition, lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the wilful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 (b) of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017). 22.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the present applications constitute an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.   Andrea Tamietti   Carlo Ranzoni   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX LIST OF APPLICANTS     No . Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality     3927/15 15/12/2014 Nahida ČALUK 07/10/1959 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina       4783/15 13/01/2015 Enes KRNJIĆ 25/11/1957 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4795/15 13/01/2015 Ibrahim SILAJDŽIJA 29/08/1949 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4799/15 13/01/2015 Ismet RIZVIĆ 09/05/1962 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4815/15 13/01/2015 Namik DUŽAN 27/02/1958 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4817/15 13/01/2015 Muhamed KERIĆ 10/02/1954 Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4819/15 13/01/2015 Ibrahim DELIĆ 07/02/1953 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4821/15 13/01/2015 Adnan ZOLOTA 12/06/1963 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4824/15 13/01/2015 Kasim ŠILJAK 26/09/1964 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4826/15 13/01/2015 Edhem SILAJDŽIJA 03/03/1951 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina       4829/15 13/01/2015 Fikret ZAHIROVIĆ 28/05/1958 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4833/15 13/01/2015 Nesib SKOPLJAK 13/03/1961 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4837/15 13/01/2015 Began HASKIĆ 26/07/1951 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4841/15 13/01/2015 Vejsil ĐULIĆ 15/02/1951 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4842/15 13/01/2015 Reflik ČAKIĆ 19/08/1963 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4848/15 13/01/2015 Sead HASANOVIĆ 08/02/1960 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4850/15 13/01/2015 Zajim KMETAŠ 10/04/1957 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4853/15 13/01/2015 Hatidža POKVIĆ 06/08/1963 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4861/15 13/01/2015 Meho ZUKIĆ 14/08/1968 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4951/15 13/01/2015 Suvad HODŽIĆ 20/12/1960 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4952/15 13/01/2015 Đemal KRNJIĆ 23/02/1962 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     4957/15 13/01/2015 Sabahudin HELDA 10/10/1958 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     5817/15 21/01/2015 Miljenka GRIZIĆ 22/06/1957 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     7277/15 30/01/2015 Asim NURKIĆ 04/09/1958 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7290/15 30/01/2015 Senad HARAČIĆ 29/04/1957 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7299/15 30/01/2015 Muradif ĆOSIĆ 29/06/1963 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7305/15 30/01/2015 Mirsada RUSTEMPAŠIĆ 02/11/1951 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7308/15 30/01/2015 Ismet MALKOČ 17/11/1954 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7323/15 29/01/2015 Sejad ČORBEG 15/09/1951 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     7333/15 29/01/2015 Suvad ZAIMOVIĆ 15/04/1964 Novi Travnik Bosnia and Herzegovina     7357/15 30/01/2015 Lutvo ĆATIĆ 27/08/1954 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7425/15 30/01/2015 Senija BRZIKA 30/01/1965 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7437/15 30/01/2015 Muhamed DAGOJA 18/04/1965 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7440/15 30/01/2015 Aiša TALIĆ 13/02/1951 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7451/15 30/01/2015 Bahrudin ĆATIĆ 14/06/1966 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     7488/15 30/01/2015 Asim NURKIĆ 04/09/1958 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10020/15 05/02/2015 Safet ALIBEGOVIĆ 13/04/1956 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10035/15 05/02/2015 Hanka DURADBEGOVIĆ 18/08/1957 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10765/15 23/02/2015 Mirsad MUSIĆ 01/09/1965 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10775/15 23/02/2015 Rasma KULAS 18/01/1960 Donji Vakuf Bosnia and Herzegovina     10866/15 23/02/2015 Ramiza ĆESO 01/02/1965 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10869/15 23/02/2015 Sadija BRČIĆ 21/03/1966 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10872/15 23/02/2015 Sead GURIĆ 05/09/1960 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10873/15 23/02/2015 Nurudin JUSIĆ 21/10/1948 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10877/15 23/02/2015 Enesa PURIVATRA 03/03/1960 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10880/15 23/02/2015 Sulejman SULTANOVIĆ 30/12/1966 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10886/15 23/02/2015 Nedžad LAKAČA 14/01/1963 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10890/15 23/02/2015 Nedžad MANDARA 27/01/1968 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10895/15 23/02/2015 Nermina TATARAGA 02/03/1971 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10900/15 23/02/2015 Nurudin JUSIĆ 21/10/1948 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10906/15 23/02/2015 Safeta HAJDAREVIĆ 25/10/1957 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10912/15 23/02/2015 Sabahudin MISTRIĆ 19/10/1964 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     10916/15 23/02/2015 Mujesira HUSIĆ 10/07/1961 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11038/15 23/02/2015 Nadžid KOSTEROVIĆ 28/12/1963 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11039/15 23/02/2015 Hašim SADIKOVIĆ 02/06/1966 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11062/15 23/02/2015 Fatima KIŠIJA 03/05/1964 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11068/15 23/02/2015 Mirsad BATIĆ 02/01/1958 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11133/15 23/02/2015 Azim VUGDALIĆ 05/01/1961 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11143/15 23/02/2015 Emir BRČIĆ 31/12/1964 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11186/15 23/02/2015 Sulejman SULTANOVIĆ 30/12/1966 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11315/15 23/02/2015 Nađid KOSTEROVIĆ 28/12/1963 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11348/15 23/02/2015 Fatima KIŠIJA 03/05/1964 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     11359/15 23/02/2015 Sead DAUTBEGOVIĆ 02/04/1968 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina     14105/15 04/03/2015 Jasmina ŽDRALOVIĆ 28/02/1960 Bugojno Bosnia and Herzegovina