CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 avril 2022

.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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .sDC0BAB79 { width:166.46pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 51661/21 Husejin ŠERBEČIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26   April 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the application (no.   51661/21) lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15 October 2021 by a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Husejin Šerbečić, who was born in 1961 and lives in Gračanica (“the applicant”) and was represented by Ms B. Dervišević, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo. Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case was about the performance appraisal of the applicant, a municipal court judge. He complained that his appraiser had not been impartial because they competed for the same post at the relevant time. He further complained that the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had examined his appeal, had failed to give reasons for its decision. On 5 May 2021 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected his appeal on the ground that no judicial decision had been taken in this case. The applicant relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT The general principles concerning the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies were summarised in Vučković and Others v. Serbia ((preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014). The applicant could have lodged an application for the protection of his constitutional rights against the impugned decision of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council with the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina pursuant to section 67 of the Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 19/02, 88/07, 83/08, 74/10). That court has already dealt with similar cases (see, for example, decisions of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina U-439/08 of 24 June 2008 and S1   3   U   017718 14 U of 16 December 2014). Furthermore, the decisions of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rendered in such cases are subject to appeal to the Constitutional Court (see decision of the Constitutional Court AP-845/15 of 20 July 2016). The applicant did not use that remedy. There is no indication, nor did the applicant argue, that the remedy in question would not have been effective, or that there are special circumstances absolving him from the requirement to use it. Therefore, the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2022.     Ilse Freiwirth   Tim Eicke   Deputy Registrar   President