CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD9371F56 { margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sC6726222 { width:137.43pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC08D0465 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE2D69DEA { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 63784/19 Azra BEGIĆ and Others against Bosnia and Herzegovina (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   February 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27   November 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr O. Eterović, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) on 30 April 2020. THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgment in their favour had been enforced. They therefore requested the Court to reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The applicants did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government. The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Čaluk and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), [Committee], nos. 3927/15 and 63 others, §§ 18-19, 25 September 2018). Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the domestic decision under consideration was indeed enforced in respect of most of the applicants between 23 October 2019 and 15 April 2020 (see the appended table). The applicants did not inform the Court about that development. The Court learned about it only from the Government’s observations of 14   October 2020. No convincing explanation for that omission was provided. Having regard to the fact that the information withheld concerned the very core of the application, the Court finds that such conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application. 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). In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the present application constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. It must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 25 February 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Liv Tigerstedt   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name   Year of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings 63784/19 27/11/2019 (14 applicants) Azra BEGIĆ 1967 Emina BEŠIREVIĆ 1951 Gabrijela MLIKOTA 1971 Nesib BEKTIĆ 1960 Dženis ĆATIĆ 1979 Zehra RAMIĆ 1960 Zoran PROLETA 1961 Fadil ŠETA 1963 Zdenka MACAN 1956 Faris KEKIĆ 1980 Nijaz HASIĆ 1961 Husejin ČIČKO 1963 Samir IMAMOVIĆ 1963 Tarik GALIJAŠEVIĆ 1957 Sarajevo Municipal Court, 18/02/2016                       15/06/2016                         pending More than 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s) in respect of the first six applicants                   15/04/2020 (PROLETA), 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 1 day(s) 21/01/2020 (ŠETA), 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 7 day(s) 12/12/2019 (MACAN) 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 28 day(s) 23/10/2019 (KEKIĆ), 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s) 13/11/2019 (HASIĆ), 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 30 day(s) 20/01/2020 (ČIČKO), 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s) 20/01/2020 (IMAMOVIĆ), 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s) 20/01/2020 (GALIJAŠEVIĆ), 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)