FOURTH
SECTION
DECISION
AS
TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application
no. 2333/04
by Milenko VIŠNJEVAC
against
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:
THE FACTS
The
applicant, Mr Milenko Višnjevac, is a citizen of
A. The
circumstances of the case
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
Prior
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).
In
Following
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.
After
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).
On
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
On
30 June 2003 the Human Rights Chamber, in a further decision, decided that the
Federation of
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.
COMPLAINT
The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about a
failure to enforce a final and enforceable judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
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.
Françoise
Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
VIŠNJEVAC v.
VIŠNJEVAC v.