CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 31 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   649 31.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT JELIČIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 41183/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 163,460 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ruža Jeličić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1953 and lives in Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina).   On 31 January 1983 she placed a sum of money in German marks in two foreign-currency savings accounts at the former Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Banja Luka . Foreign-currency savings which were deposited prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) (“old” foreign-currency savings) fall under a special legal regime in Bosnia and Herzegovina.   The applicant attempted unsuccessfully to withdraw her savings from the bank on several occasions.   On 26 November 1998 she obtained a judgment ordering her bank to release all sums on her accounts plus default interest and legal costs. Since that judgment was not executed, on 12 January 2000 the Bosnia and Herzegovina Human Rights Chamber found that the Republika Srpska (part of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which the bank is situated) had violated the applicant’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered the Republika Srpska to enforce the judgment without further delay. However, the judgment has not yet been enforced.   On 18 January 2002, according to domestic legislation and following the completion of the privatisation of the bank, the money in the applicant’s foreign-currency accounts became a public debt attributable to the Republika Srpska.   On 15 April 2006 Bosnia and Herzegovina (that is, the State) took over that debt, under section 1 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2006.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 August 2002. A hearing took place at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 28 June 2005. The application was declared admissible on 15 November 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the statutory prevention of the enforcement of a final and enforceable judgment in her favour. Her complaint was examined by the Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 The Court noted that the judgment of 26   November 1998, although final and enforceable, had not yet been executed. The impugned situation has thus already lasted more than four years since the ratification of the Convention by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 12   July   2002 (the period which fell within the Court’s jurisdiction). The Court also noted that the judgment debt was the liability of the State.   The Government did not dispute that in ordinary circumstances a delay in the execution of a judgment of more than four years would not be consistent with the requirements of Article 6. However, they maintained that the present case was exceptional as the judgment in question concerned the release of the applicant’s “old” foreign-currency savings. It would be unacceptable to execute that judgment without reimbursing other “old” foreign-currency savers at the same time (including those who had not obtained a final and enforceable judgment in their favour) and such a course of action was simply impossible due to the magnitude of the “old” foreign-currency savings.   The Court disagreed; it considered that the situation of the applicant was significantly different from that of the majority of “old” foreign-currency savers who had not obtained any judgment ordering the release of their funds.   The Court did not consider that the payment of the award made by the domestic courts in the applicant’s case, even with the accumulated default interest, would be a significant burden for the State let alone result in the collapse of its economy as suggested by the Government. In any event, the applicant should not be prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation on the ground of alleged financial difficulties experienced by the State.   Further, the evidence was that judgments ordering the release of “old” foreign-currency savings were the exception rather than the norm. That had been corroborated by the case-law of the former Human Rights Chamber, the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina: they had determined more than 1,000 “old” foreign-currency cases and a final and enforceable judgment ordering the release of savings had been made in only five cases. Similarly, of the 85 cases approximately pending before the European Court of Human Rights (submitted on behalf of more than 3,750 applicants) concerning “old” foreign-currency savings, about ten applicants had a final and enforceable judgment ordering the release of their savings.   While the Court appreciated that a major part of “old” foreign-currency savings might have ceased to exist before or during the dissolution of the former SFRY and the disintegration of its banking and monetary systems [3] , such circumstances fell to be invoked and examined prior to a final domestic determination of a case and where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question.   In the circumstances of the applicant’s case, the Court considered that it was not justified to delay so long the execution of a final and enforceable judgment, or to intervene in the execution of the judgment in the manner foreseen by section 27 of the 2006 Act.   The Court concluded that the essence of the applicant’s right of access to court protected by Article 6 of the Convention was thereby impaired. There had accordingly been a breach of that Article.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The Court recalled that the impossibility of obtaining the execution of a final judgment in an applicant’s favour constituted an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   For the reasons detailed in the context of Article 6 above, the Court further considered that the interference with the applicant’s possessions was not justified in the circumstances of the applicant’s case. Therefore, there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [3] See the report by Erik Jurgens, Repayment of the deposits of foreign exchange made in the offices of the Ljubljanska banka not on the territory of Slovenia, 1977-1991 , accompanying the resolution 1410 (2004) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 23   November 2004.