The ECHR judgment of 14 November 2017 in the Kunic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case (application No. 68955/12 and others), ECHR judgment of 14 November 2017 in the case of Spahic and Others ) against Bosnia and Herzegovina "( application No. 20514/15 and others).
In 2012 and 2015, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, applications were communicated to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In the case, the complaint on the non-payment of benefits related to work activities recovered on the basis of a judicial act was successfully considered. There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants were awarded various amounts in respect of unpaid work-related benefits. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina subsequently found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with regard to the prolonged non-enforcement of final decisions rendered in favor of the applicants. However, the final decisions remained unfulfilled in terms of public funds.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Government of the respondent State can not invoke the lack of financial means as an excuse for non-payment in pursuance of a judicial decision. In its decisions, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular indicated that the relevant cantonal governments should determine the exact number of outstanding decisions, the amount of the aggregate debt and create a centralized, chronological and transparent database that should include a timetable and help avoid abuse of enforcement procedures. Despite the fact that some general measures were taken, as indicated by the Constitutional Court, the situation of the applicants remained unchanged. By failing to take the necessary measures in the present case to enforce the final decisions for such a long period, the authorities of the respondent State deprived the provision of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention of any useful value, and also prevented the applicants from obtaining the funds for which they had the right. This also amounted to a disproportionate interference with the unhindered use of property.
DECISION
The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimously).
In the application of Article 46 of the Convention. By virtue of Article 46, the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to implement the final judgments of the European Court of Justice in any case to which they are parties, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It follows that the judgment in which the Court finds a violation imposes on the respondent State authorities a legal obligation not only to pay the amounts awarded in an equitable way in accordance with Article 41 of the Convention but also to adopt, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, reasonable measures of general and / or of an individual character. The state is obliged to take such measures also with regard to persons in the applicants' position, especially by taking general measures indicated by the Constitutional Court in its decisions.
Currently, there are more than 400 similar complaints filed with the European Court. Following their communication to the respondent State authorities, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the respondent State was to provide adequate and sufficient compensation to all applicants in a similar situation. This reimbursement could be achieved through ad hoc decisions, such as an amicable settlement or unilateral declarations of reimbursement in accordance with convention requirements.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. In respect of compensation for pecuniary damage, the applicants asked to pay the remaining amounts awarded by the decisions of the domestic courts. The most appropriate form of compensation in cases of non-performance is the full implementation of these decisions of the courts. This principle is also applicable in the present case. The applicants experienced suffering, anxiety and anxiety as a result of the Government's refusal to comply with the final decisions of the courts rendered in their favor. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.