AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the
SFRY”) the applicant deposited foreign currency in his bank account at the then office of a Slovenian bank in
Sarajevo (Ljubljanska banka
Glavna filijala Sarajevo).
several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw his funds, the applicant initiated
court proceedings against the Ljubljanska banka
On 22 November 1993 the Sarajevo Court of First Instance ordered the Ljubljanska banka Sarajevo to pay to the applicant, within 8 days, the full sum in his account (2,000 German marks1), which amount included accrued interest. Default interest and legal costs were not awarded. The judgment entered into force on 19 January 1994.
the Ljubljanska banka
Meanwhile, the applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Chamber (the human-rights body set up by Annex 6 to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace).
7 October 2002 the Human Rights
Chamber found a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to that Convention arising from a
failure to enforce the judgment of 22 November 1993. The Human Rights Chamber
held the Federation of
30 June 2003 the Human Rights Chamber, in a further decision, decided that the
The judgment debt (approximately 1,020 euros) and damages and legal costs awarded by the Human Rights Chamber (in total approximately 1,640 euros) have subsequently been paid to the applicant. The applicant has thus received approximately 2,660 euros in all. He has not indicated the date of the payment.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice see the Jeličić decision cited above.
Article 6, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
It is the Court’s settled case-law that where national authorities have acknowledged, at least in substance, a breach of the Convention and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the applicant concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 193, ECHR 2006-...).
The judgment, which is in issue in the present case, has eventually been enforced, the competent domestic body has expressly acknowledged a breach of the Convention and it has afforded redress for that breach. The Court considers the sums awarded (approximately 1,640 euros for damage and legal costs in addition to approximately 1,020 euros in respect of the principal debt) to constitute appropriate and sufficient redress.
In these circumstances, even assuming that Bosnia and Herzegovina can be held responsible for any problems in connection with savings deposited in the former Ljubljanska banka Glavna filijala Sarajevo (see, mutatis mutandis, Kovačić, Mrkonjić and Golubović v. Slovenia (dec.), nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, 9 October 2003), the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged breach. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President