Non execution of decisions of national courts violate the rights of fair trial and the respect for property
Non-execution of irrevocable decisions by national courts. Thirty-two Bosniak and Herzegovina citizens filed a complaint before the ECtHR for protesting against the irreconcilable internal decisions concerning them. Over the same issue there are more than 400 appeals pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The vindication came from Strasbourg, which accepted the appeals, recognizing that essential provisions of the ECHR, such as Article 6 (1) (right to be heard) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property protection) of the Convention.
Article 6 § 1
Article 1 of the First Protocol
Both cases concerned 32 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who complained about
non-enforcement of final domestic judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a
fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(protection of property) to the Convention.
In these cases two of the ten cantons of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were ordered to
pay the applicants different sums for unpaid work-related benefits. In the first case, the judgments
became final between more than seven and almost 11 years ago; and in the second case, between
four and more than seven years ago.
Most of the applicants complained about the non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, which has since ordered general measures in judgments of 2011, 2014 and 2015.
In particular the cantonal governments concerned were told to identify the exact number of
unenforced judgments, as well as the amount of debt, and to set up a centralised database to
enforce a time-frame and avoid abuse of the enforcement procedure.
To date, however, the judgments in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced.
There are currently more than 400 similar applications pending before the European Court of Human
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in both cases
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in both cases
– case of Kunić and Others:
The Court held that Bosnia and Herzegovina was to secure enforcement of the domestic judgments
under consideration in the present case. It also held that Bosnia and Herzegovina was to pay 1,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 to Mr Kunić for costs and expenses.
– case of Spahić and Others:
The Court held that Bosnia and Herzegovina was to secure payment of legal costs ordered by final
domestic judgments in favour of Mr Jasmin Hodžić and Ms Jasmina Mezildžić, and to secure full
enforcement of the domestic judgments under consideration in the present case concerning the
remaining applicants. It also held that Bosnia and Herzegovina was to pay, to each applicant,
EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing).