Analiza slučaja pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava
Evropska Konvencija o ljudskim pravima
Praktični vodič za primenu Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima
Priručnici i vodiči kroz praksu Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Evropski sud za ljudska prava u 50 pitanja
Preuzmite presudu u pdf formatu
EVROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA
ČETVRTO ODELJENJE
PREDMET BRULIĆ protiv BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE
(Predstavka broj 702/22)
PRESUDA
STRAZBUR
8. Jun 2023. godine
Ova presuda je konačna, ali su u njoj moguće uredničke izmene
U predmetu Brulić protiv Bosne i Hercegovine,
Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Četvrto odeljenje), zasedajući kao odbor u sledećem sastavu:
Tim Eicke, predsednik
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, sudije,
i Viktoriya Maradudina, v.d. zamenice sekretara Odeljenja,
nakon većanja zatvorenog za javnost, održanog 17. juna 2023. godine, doneo je sledeću presudu koja je usvojena istog dana:
POSTUPAK
ČINJENICE
PRAVO
I. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANA 6. STAV 1. KONVENCIJE I ČLANA 1. PROTOKOLA BR. 1.
II. PRIMENA ČLANA 41. KONVENCIJE
“Ukoliko Sud utvrdi da je došlo do povrede Konvencije ili njenih Protokola, te ukoliko zakonodavstvo visoke ugovorne strane o kojoj je reč omogućuje samo delomično obeštećenje, Sud će, po potrebi, odrediti pravičnu nadoknadu oštećenoj strani.”
IZ NAVEDENIH RAZLOGA, SUD JEDNOGLASNO,
1. Proglašava predstavku dopuštenom;
2. Utvrđuje da ova predstavka otkriva povredu člana 6. stav 1. Konvencije, te člana 1. Protokola br. 1. zbog neizvršenja domaće odluke;
3. Utvrđuje da će tužena država u roku od tri meseca osigurati, odgovarajućim sredstvima, izvršenje neizvršene domaće odluke navedene u tabeli koja se nalazi u dodatku;
4. Utvrđuje
(a) da će tužena država, u roku od tri meseca, aplikantu isplatiti iznose navedene u tabeli koja se nalazi u dodatku, pretvorene u valutu tužene države prema kursu važećem na dan izmirenja;
(b) da će se od isteka navedenog roka od tri meseca do izmirenja, na navedene iznose plaćati obična kamata po stopi jednakoj najnižoj kreditnoj stopi Evropske centralne banke u periodu neplaćanja, uvećanoj za tri postotna boda.
Sačinjeno na engleskom jeziku i dostavljeno u pisanoj formi dana 8. juna 2023. godine u skladu s pravilom 77. §§ 2. i 3. Pravila Suda.
Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke
v.d. zamenice sekretara Odeljenja Predsednik
DODATAK
Predstavka postavlja pitanja prema članu 6. stav 1. Konvencije i članu 1. Protokola br. 1
(neizvršavanje domaćih odluka)
|
Predstavka br. Datum podnošenja |
Ime i prezime aplikanta Godina rođenja |
Ime Zastupnika i njegovo sedište |
Relevantna domaća odluka |
Početak perioda neizvršavanja |
Završetak perioda neizvršavanja, trajanje postupka, dužina izvršnog postupka |
Iznos dosuđen na ime nematerijalne štete po aplikantu (u eurima)[1] 2 |
Iznos dosuđen na ime troškova i izdataka po aplikaciji ( u eurima)3 |
|
702/22 23/12/2021 |
Salko BRULIĆ 1953 |
Muhović Irma Sarajevo |
Opštinski sud Sarajevo 28/02/2006 |
31/07/2006
|
postupak u toku 16 godina, 3 meseca i 25 dana |
1,000 |
250 |
1 Plus svaki porez koji se aplikantu može zaračunati.
2 Umanjeno za sve iznose koji su eventualno već isplaćeni u tom pogledu na domaćem nivou.
3 Plus svaki porez koji se aplikantu može zaračunati.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BRULIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 702/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Brulić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in an application against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 December 2021.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms I. Muhović, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo.
3. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision issued in his favour against the Sarajevo Canton.
THE LAW
6. The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
8. The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
9. In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017 and Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, §§ 26‑31, 14 November 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Notably, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the compatibility ratione personae of the application, since the Constitutional Court has found that the Sarajevo Canton is liable for the judgment debt at issue and should therefore pay it from its own funds. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Spahić and Others, cited above, §§ 36-43 and Kunić and Others, cited above, §§ 37-46), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the domestic decision which remains enforceable.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 June 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President
baza unakrsnih veza