CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2024

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s362C3DC5 { width:6.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6AAF50BE { width:16.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s323CAC0E { width:16.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC469A2AB { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA7CC054 { width:20.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF31A1FB8 { width:23.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB05A3A55 { width:6.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1CB741E3 { width:16.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE456770D { width:16.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6FEA060 { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s542213A8 { width:20.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F5570EE { width:23.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 4 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 43201/22 Zlatan KAROVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 15 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the non-enforcement of nine domestic decisions against the Sarajevo Canton. The writs of execution were issued between 2014 and 2022. On 12 January 2022 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Ms Čaldarević and Mr Šabanović, ordered the Sarajevo Canton to enforce the domestic decisions at issue and to pay them 300 convertible marks [1] each for non-pecuniary damage. On 13 January 2022 the Sarajevo Canton adopted an enforcement plan for all domestic decisions against the Sarajevo Canton (see the Official Gazette of the Sarajevo Canton no. 4/22). The plan provides that those who renounce their claims for default interest and/or legal costs will be paid their principal claims without delay. As regards those who do not agree to that, such as the present applicants, it is provided that the decisions in their favour will be enforced in a chronological order in the period from 2022 until 2026 and that 0.8% of the total budget will be designated for those purposes. Unlike the enforcement plans of other cantons, it appears that the enforcement plan adopted by the Sarajevo Canton does not indicate the year of enforcement for each non-enforced domestic decision against that Canton. The present applicants, like all others in their situation, thus still do not know when the decisions in their favour will be enforced. It is further provided that the Canton reserves the right not to stick to the plan if it is allocated less funds in the future. In the course of 2022, the Constitutional Court rejected the cases of Mr Karović, Mr Zametica, Ms Bukva and Mr Pecirep on the grounds that the enforcement plan of the Sarajevo Canton was acceptable. The remaining two applicants, Mr Kršlak and Ms Bradarić, did not lodge a constitutional appeal. The applicants complain that the domestic decisions at issue have not yet been enforced. In this connection, they rely on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants claim that the Sarajevo Canton gives priority to those who renounce their claims for default interest and/or legal costs, leaving them in legal limbo and effectively putting pressure on them to also renounce a part of their claims. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arising from the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in the applicants’ favour against the Sarajevo Canton (see Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15   others, 14 November 2017; Kunić and   Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos.   68955/12 and 15 others, 14 November 2017; and Muhović and Others v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), nos. 40841/13 and 12 others, 15 September 2020)?   The Government are required to indicate how many domestic decisions against the Sarajevo Canton were included in that Canton’s enforcement plan and how many of them were enforced in 2022 and 2023 (by year) in respect of those who had renounced their claims for default interest and/or legal costs and in respect of those who, like the present applicants, had not done so (by category).   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 43201/22 Karović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 11/08/2022 Zlatan KAROVIĆ 1987 Sarajevo BIH ZAJEDNIČKA ADVOKATSKA KANCELARIJA GALIJATOVIĆ & PECIKOZA 2. 50968/22 Zametica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 19/10/2022 Midhat ZAMETICA 1963 Sarajevo BIH Amela ZAMETICA-AKŠAMIJA 3. 555/23 Kršlak v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 15/12/2022 Tarik KRŠLAK 1979 Sarajevo BIH Nedim MUHIĆ 4. 735/23 Bukva v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 23/12/2022 Sabina BUKVA 1971 Sarajevo BIH   5. 5241/23 Bradarić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 20/01/2023 Vanja BRADARIĆ 1976 Sarajevo BIH Dejan ARNAUT 6. 11223/23 Pecirep v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 06/03/2023 Neven PECIREP 1967 Sarajevo BIH   7. 23675/23 Čaldarević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 02/06/2023 Amela ČALDAREVIĆ 1977 Vogošća BIH   8. 23976/23 Šabanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 02/06/2023 Osman ŠABANOVIĆ 1967 Ilidža BIH     [1] The convertible mark uses the same fixed exchange rate to the euro that the German mark has (1 convertible mark = 0.51129 euros).