CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 juillet 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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; 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 } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25397/20 Kenan BUČUK and Others against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 3 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting 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: 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 of domestic decisions were communicated to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) on 5 November 2020. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of domestic decisions) In their observations of 4 March 2021, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgments in their favour had been enforced. They therefore requested the Court to reject the applications 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 decisions under consideration were fully enforced in respect of some of the applicants before notice of the applications was given to the Government (see the appended table). The applicants did not inform the Court about that development. The Court only learned about it from the Government’s observations of 4 March 2021. No convincing explanation for that omission was provided. 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. 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 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 in accordance with Article 35 § 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 22 July 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) No. 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     25397/20 27/05/2020 (17 applicants) Kenan BUČUK 1973 Eneid HASANOVIĆ 1976 Mihret ROTIĆ 1977 Srećko TOPALOVIĆ 1972 Adis MUHIBIĆ 1977 Fuad KARIĆ 1973 Amra SINANOVIĆ 1979 Aldin SINANOVIĆ 1978 Rijad POLJO 1974 Almir SULJIĆ 1973 Alen MAŠIĆ 1980 Fikret IŠERIĆ 1965 Radenko MILIĆ 1982 Marko JAŠAR 1981 Marko AGATIĆ 1983 Zoran DRAŠKO 1982 Nijaz ČUTUK 1962 Sarajevo Municipal Court, 05/09/2016       03/11/2016         18/03/2020 (for the applicant MUHIBIĆ), 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s)   31/08/2020 (for the applicant KARIĆ), 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 29 day(s)   25/09/2020 (for the applicant IŠERIĆ), 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s)   18/11/2019 (for the applicant MILIĆ), 3 year(s) and 16 day(s)   pending (for the remaining applicants) more than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s)       27908/20 27/05/2020 (14 applicants) Enisa ŠIKALO 1971 Ismet ŠEHIĆ 1967 Vjekoslav JURIĆ 1959 Aljo BABIĆ 1960 Medin MEKIĆ 1977 Sabahudin KAFEDŽIĆ 1976 Amir BAJRIĆ 1969 Mašo ĐUDERIJA 1966 Samir SMAJLOVIĆ 1974 Avdo BAŠALIJA 1969 Samir ASANI 1971 Avdaga DURAK 1960 Josip LIVANČIĆ 1975 Nedžad ADEMOVIĆ 1973   Sarajevo Municipal Court, 23/10/2015       04/02/2016         02/09/2020 (for the applicant ŠIKALO), 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 30 day(s)   31/08/2020 (for the applicant LIVANČIĆ), 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 28 day(s)   08/10/2020 (for the applicant DURAK), 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)   pending (for the remaining applicants) more than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 day(s)       27924/20 27/05/2020 (10 applicants) Nermin FERHATOVIĆ 1976 Elvedin ŠABANOVIĆ 1975 Adi JAČEVIĆ 1972 Ismet PANJETA 1970 Muris HRVO 1972 Mirza ALIĆ 1968 Edin GADŽO 1963 Zijad HODŽIĆ 1964 Midhat ZUKIĆ 1969 Suvad PODŽIĆ 1967 Sarajevo Municipal Court, 21/03/2017       06/02/2018         06/11/2019 (for the applicant FERHATOVIĆ), 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 1 day(s)   12/06/2020 (for the applicant ŠABANOVIĆ), 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 7 day(s)   16/09/2019 (for the applicant JARČEVIĆ), 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 11 day(s)   27/05/2020 (for the applicant PANJETA), 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 22 day(s)   26/05/2020 (for the applicant HRVO), 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)   24/02/2020 (for the applicant GADŽO), 2 year(s) and 19 day(s)   24/02/2020 (for the applicant HODŽIĆ), 2 year(s) and 19 day(s)   06/11/2019 (for the applicant ZUKIĆ), 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 1 day(s)   pending (for the remaining applicants) more than 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 3 day(s)       29175/20 27/05/2020 (10 applicants) Mato ANĐIĆ 1970 Nikola LIVAJA 1973 Jozo DRLJEPAN 1970 Mijo MILIČEVIĆ 1962 Dragan RAKO 1967 Zoran KUHAR 1975 Pavo JOZELJIĆ 1968 Vanja ČUBELIĆ 1971 Željko PECIREP 1972 Renato TADIĆ 1974 Sarajevo Municipal Court,   06/06/2017         08/11/2017           17/12/2019 (for the applicant ANĐIĆ), 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)   08/11/2019 (for the applicant KUHAR), 2 year(s) and 1 day(s)   10/07/2020 (for the applicant JOZELJIĆ), 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s) 18/03/2020 (for the applicant ČUBELIĆ), 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s)   14/07/2020 (for the applicant PECIREP), 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 7 day(s)   04/12/2019 (for the applicant TADIĆ), 2 year(s) and 27 day(s)   23/12/2019 (for the applicant DRLJEPAN), 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)   29/09/2020 (for the applicant RAKO), 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s)   pending (for the remaining applicants) more than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)