CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 May 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 32604/20 Slobodan BOSNIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 3 July 2020 communicated on 2 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns potentially excessive legal costs imposed on a party to civil proceedings. The applicant is a pensioner who was ordered to pay legal costs of the State’s representation in the proceedings in the amount of BAM 16,875 (approximately EUR 8,630), after his civil claim for non-pecuniary damages due to the onset of illness during his active military service between 1992-199 5 in the amount of BAM 37,000 (approximately EUR 18,917) had been rejected. On 19   September 2019 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal which was served on the applicant on 14 October 2019. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the legal costs he was ordered to pay are excessive and unfounded. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered him to reimburse the State the costs of proceedings? In particular, did ordering the payment of those costs of proceedings impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016)?