CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 novembre 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8D7B8CC6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s814ABC14 { width:14.35pt; display:inline-block } .s7EDD3AD2 { width:153.53pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9C6A147F { width:184.21pt; display:inline-block } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28251/18 Husein ŠARGANOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 19 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9   November 2020 as a Chamber composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Tim Eicke,   Faris Vehabović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, 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 parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were represented by Ms   H.   Kapetan, a lawyer practising in Travnik. 2.     The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Lučić, Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4 .     The applicants were at the relevant time, and most of them still are, public servants on the payroll of the Una-Sana Canton [1] . Between 2004 and 2014 they obtained domestic judgments ordering the canton to pay them various amounts in respect of unpaid work-related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs. Writs of execution were then issued between 2007 and 2015. 5 .     Between 2015 and 2017 the applicants obtained Constitutional Court decisions finding a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and ordering the canton to take the necessary measures with a view to securing the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it within a reasonable time. 6.     According to the latest information available to the Court (dated 12   October 2020), none of the judgments indicated in paragraph 4 above have been enforced. Relevant domestic law and practice 7.   The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the issue of non-enforcement of domestic judgments against cantons were set out in Muhović   and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ((dec.), nos. 40841/13 and 12 others, §§ 7-15 and 17, 8 October 2020). COMPLAINTS 8.     The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments against the Una-Sana Canton. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW 9.     The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. The relevant parts of the provisions relied on by them provide as follows: Article 6 § 1 of the Convention “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 to the Convention “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.” Joinder of the applications 10.     Having regard to the similar subject matter, the Court finds it appropriate to order the joinder of the applications (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The parties’ submissions 11 .     The Government informed the Court that on 28 February 2020 the Una-Sana Canton had introduced an action plan with a view to securing the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it. A list of 11,793 unenforced judgments was attached. The plan stated that the debt was almost 175,000,000 convertible marks (BAM) [2] (almost 75% of the cantonal budget in 2020) and that the judgments would be enforced, in chronological order, by 2040. The Government submitted that the matter had thus been resolved. 12 .     They also raised an inadmissibility objection, maintaining that the applicants had failed to act with reasonable expedition for the purposes of the six-month rule. 13 .     The applicants disagreed with the Government. In particular, they submitted that the enforcement time frame set by the Una-Sana Canton was unreasonable. The Court’s assessment 14.     The Court reiterates that whilst it is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see Burdov v. Russia , no.   59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002 ‑ III; Teteriny v. Russia , no. 11931/03, §   41, 30 June 2005; and Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 41183/02, §§ 39 and 42, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII), the system of staggering the enforcement of final domestic judgments may be accepted in exceptional circumstances (see Đurić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos.   79867/12 and 5 others, § 30, 20 January 2015). 15.     In 2017 the Court adopted leading judgments concerning the non-enforcement of judgments against the Zenica-Doboj Canton and the Central Bosnia Canton, finding a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Kunić and Others v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, 14 November 2017, and Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, 14 November 2017). It later followed the same approach in cases concerning the non-enforcement of judgments against the Una-Sana Canton (see, for example, Vučetić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], nos. 25698/15 and 7 others, 9 May 2019). 16.     Given the number of similar cases, the Court invited the respondent State, under Article 46 of the Convention (see Kunić and Others , § 34, and Spahić and Others , § 33, both cited above), to solve the problem that had led to the finding of a breach by securing the implementation of the general measures indicated by the Constitutional Court in this connection. In many cases concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments against the Una-Sana Canton, the Constitutional Court ordered the canton to take the necessary measures with a view to securing the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it within a reasonable time (see paragraph 5 above). 17.     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the Una-Sana Canton has set a time frame for the enforcement of all domestic judgments against it (see paragraph 11 above). It has undertaken to enforce all (more than 11,000) judgments, in chronological order, by 2040. In a case about the non-enforcement of domestic judgments against another canton (see Muhović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), nos. 40841/13 and 12 others, §§ 30-33, 15 September 2020), the Court held that an enforcement time frame with a longer duration, where the final date was set for 2041, was acceptable and amounted to implementation of the general measures it had indicated. There is no reason to take a different approach in the present case. 18.     Accordingly, the Court concludes that the matter has been resolved for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (ibid., § 34). 19.     While there is no doubt that the applicants have suffered some non-pecuniary damage because of the delays that have occurred, the Court notes that they are entitled to substantial default interest. In view of the fact that, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the statutory rate of default interest is significantly higher than the rate of inflation (ibid., § 17), the Court agrees with the Constitutional Court that this will alleviate the applicants’ distress at least to some extent (see the Constitutional Court’s finding in this connection in its pilot decision of 12 March 2019, quoted in Muhović and Others , cited above, § 14). Furthermore, the Court has held in cases concerning structural problems at domestic level that it is not necessary to order that adequate redress be awarded to all persons affected (see, in particular, Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 27912/02, § 64, 3   November 2009, and Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 149, ECHR 2014). Indeed, the Court’s role, after the State has implemented the general measures in conformity with the Convention, cannot be converted into providing individualised financial relief in repetitive cases arising from the same systemic situation (see Zadrić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no.   18804/04, 16 November 2010, and Muhović and Others , cited above, § 35). 20.     In view of the above, the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present applications. Moreover, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , it finds no particular circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. 21.     This conclusion is, however, without any prejudice to the Court’s power to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the present or any other similar applications to the list of cases if the circumstances justify such a course (see Muhović and Others , cited above, § 37). 22.     In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary for the Court to examine the inadmissibility objection raised by the Government (see paragraph 12 above). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 December 2020.   Andrea Tamietti   Yonko Grozev   Registrar   President     Appendix   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence 1 28251/18 Šarganović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 30/05/2018 Husein ŠARGANOVIĆ 1943 Bihać 2 33184/18 Hadžić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Ervin HADŽIĆ 1974 Bihać 3 33188/18 Muhamedagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Aida MUHAMEDAGIĆ 1969 Bihać 4 33198/18 Šantić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Marija ŠANTIĆ 1958 Bihać 5 33214/18 Ćaćulović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Ljubica ĆAĆULOVIĆ 1947 Bihać 6 33250/18 Kučković v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Bahra KUČKOVIĆ 1950 Bihać 7 33254/18 Pašić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Belma PAŠIĆ 1974 Bihać 8 33256/18 Janjičić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Katarina JANJIČIĆ 1958 Bihać 9 33258/18 Cazinkić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Selma CAZINKIĆ 1974 Bihać 10 33262/18 Studen v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Uroš STUDEN 1946 Bihać 11 33391/18 Mašinović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Hata MAŠINOVIĆ 1951 Bihać 12 33398/18 Badić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Ljubica BADIĆ 1951 Cazin 13 33401/18 Sitnić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Kerima SITNIĆ 1945 Bihać 14 33408/18 Omanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Rasema OMANOVIĆ 1947 Cazin 15 33413/18 Dervić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Suvad DERVIĆ 1963 Bihać 16 33421/18 Konjević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Ivka KONJEVIĆ 1948 Bihać 17 33427/18 Ćemalović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Indira ĆEMALOVIĆ 1969 Bihać 18 33431/18 Seder v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Enisa SEDER 1944 Cazin 19 33438/18 Omanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Šemsa OMANOVIĆ 1948 Cazin 20 33650/18 Ferizović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 26/06/2018 Naila FERIZOVIĆ 1943 Bihać     [1] Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska) and a district (the Brčko District). The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of ten cantons, including the Una-Sana Canton. [2] The convertible mark uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro that the German mark has (1 euro = 1.95583 convertible marks).