CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88BA33B6 { width:74.86%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEF2C0F73 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s2885ED88 { width:35.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC590A1FB { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDEAEE6E4 { width:27.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s92370B00 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sB2E5A5C5 { width:35.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30ADBAC4 { width:25%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4384FB4B { width:27.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 10 July 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38695/13 Ivan KOŽUL and others against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 20 April 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   All applicants are nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For additional personal details, see the attached Appendix. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows. On 13 October 2005 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina delivered a decision in which it found that the Široki Brijeg Municipality had failed to enforce its own demolition decision of 4 February 2002. The said decision concerned proceedings instituted against the private company Paškić Ltd, a limited liability company with its registered seat in Široki Brijeg (“the Paškić company”), which had illegally erected two silos for concrete production and the supporting factories close to the applicants’ homes, causing noise, pollution, dust from cement and stones, smoke from combustion and other discomfort. In order to remedy this situation, the Constitutional Court ordered the Široki Brijeg Municipality to enforce its own decision, namely to ensure the speedy removal, by the Paškić company, of the buildings in question. On 27 May 2006 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirmed that the Široki Brijeg Municipality had still not enforced its decision of 13 October 2005. At the date of the latest information available to the Court (20   June 2017) that decision remained unenforced. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce the final decision rendered in their favour. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 and/or of Article 13 of the Convention arising from the non-enforcement of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 13 October 2005 in the applicants’ favour?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and/or home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?     Appendix   N o . Name and Surname Date of birth Place of residence   Ivan KOŽUL 08/09/1960 Široki Brijeg   Dinko KOŽUL 15/03/1967 Široki Brijeg   Dražen KOŽUL 08/10/1962 Široki Brijeg   Petar KOŽUL 11/07/1938 Široki Brijeg   Ruža KOŽUL 16/03/1939 Široki Brijeg