CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 3 January 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44312/19 Usmir TUTUNDŽIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 1 August 2019 communicated on 9 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged denial of access to the Constitutional Court. On 8 June 2017 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining about the length of administrative proceedings relating to the reduction of his monthly disability benefits. At that time the proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court. On 14 August 2017 the applicant submitted a letter informing the Constitutional Court that the Supreme Court rendered its final decision on 26 July 2017. The decision was enclosed with the letter. The letter included an additional complaint about the outcome of proceedings before the Supreme Court. On 13 February 2019 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal relying on its previous case-law to no longer deal with the issue of the length of pending, as opposed to terminated, proceedings (see Delić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 59181/18, §§ 10-12, 2   March 2021). The applicant’s letter of 14 August 2017 was disregarded. While the applicant relies on Article 13 of the Convention, his complaint falls to be examined in light of the right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, § 88, Series A no. 52).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the request for review under Rule 68 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning access to the Constitutional Court? The Government are requested to provide examples, if any, of cases in which that remedy has been used to rectify mistakes made by the Constitutional Court in declaring an appeal inadmissible.   2.     Did the applicant have access to the Constitutional Court, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, for his complaint concerning the length and outcome of administrative proceedings (see, for the relevant principles, Dos Santos Calado and Others v. Portugal , nos. 55997/14 and 3 others, §§   111-17, 31   March 2020)?