FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19531/18 Mato ANĐELIĆ and Ivica ZADRO against Bosnia and Herzegovina (s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 December 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2018 ,

Having regard to the formal declaration s accepting a friendly settlement in respect of Mato Anđelić ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in respect of Ivica Zadro ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) on 28 November 2019.

The Court received the friendly-settlement declaration under which the first applicant, Mato Anđelić , agreed to waive any further claims against Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amount detailed in the appended table. This amount will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government also undertake to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decisions in his favour under consideration in this case within the same three-month period. The payment and the enforcement of those domestic decisions will constitute the final resolution of his case.

THE LAW

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in respect of Mato Anđelić .

The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to inform the Court of the fact that the final judgment in his favour had been enforced. They therefore suggested that the Court reject the application as an abuse of the right of individual application in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

The applicant did not dispute the facts as presented by the Government.

The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on false information or if significant information and documents were deliberately omitted, either where they were known from the outset or where new significant developments occurred during the proceedings. Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 67, ECHR 2014; and Čaluk and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.) [Committee], nos. 3927/15 and 63 others, §§ 18-19, 25 September 2018 ).

Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the final judgment in the applicant ’ s favour was fully enforced on 26 September 2019. Although that development concerned the very core of the case, the applicant did not inform the Court about it before notice of the application was given to the Government and no convincing explanation for this omission was provided.

The Court considers that this constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) in fine of the Convention. The application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention in respect of Ivica Zadro .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in respect of Mato Anđelić ;

Declares the application inadmissible in respect of Ivica Zadro .

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 January 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Armen Harutyunyan Acting D eputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

( non- enforcement of domestic decisions )

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Year of birth

Relevant domestic decision

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of Applicant ’ s declaration

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage to the first applicant

(in euros) [1] [2]

19531/18

13/04/2018

Mato ANĐELIĆ

1956Ivica ZADRO

1974Sarajevo First Instance Court, 30/03/2016

Sarajevo First Instance Court, 17/03/2017

Sarajevo First Instance Court, 20/04/2017

____

Sarajevo First Instance Court, 03/06/2014

24/07/2020

-

09/01/2020

-

1,000

-

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

[2] Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.