FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 32604/20 Slobodan BOSNIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 February 2022 as a Committee composed of:

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

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2020,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the alleged excessive legal costs imposed on him in civil proceedings were communicated to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by that complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that there has been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possession under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They offered to pay the applicant the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay those amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. On 11 January 2022 he informed the Court that he did not accept the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive legal costs imposed on a party to civil proceedings (see, for example, Cindrić and BeÅ¡lić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, §§ 91-92, 98 and 108-111, 6 September 2016; Musa Tarhan v. Turkey , no. 12055/17, §§ 71-72, 74 ‑ 75 and 88-89, 23 October 2018; and National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria , no. 31678/17, §§ 68-71, 75 and 83-84, 15 December 2020).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 March 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

(interference with the right to property)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses

(in euros) [2]

32604/20

03/07/2020

Slobodan BOSNIĆ

1941Đukić Milorad

Banja Luka

03/12/2021

11/01/2022

2,700

500[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant

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