Communicated on 9 December 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 59181/18 Sanel DELIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 6 December 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sanel Delić , is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1975 and lives in Banovići . He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Salkanović , a lawyer practising in Živinice .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 23 October 2012 the applicant lodged an action for damages against a microcredit organisation, K.S. and R.S. On 7 November 2019 the Banovići Municipal Court rendered a judgment in this case. It would appear that the applicant appealed and that, at the date of the latest information available to the Court (3 December 2019), the case was pending before the Tuzla Cantonal Court.

In the meantime, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal complaining about the length of the proceedings; on 6 November 2018 the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional appeal as being substantially the same as a matter that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court (see the relevant domestic law and practice below).

In its pilot decision no. AP-4101/15 of 10 May 2017, the Constitutional Court held that the excessive length of proceedings was a systemic problem, found a breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in 67 cases raising that issue and indicated general measures, such as the introduction of a preventive remedy for the length of proceedings.

Since the general measures indicated by the Constitutional Court had not yet been fully implemented, on 6 November 2018 it decided not to deal with the issue of the length of pending (as opposed to finished) proceedings for a period of one year and rejected 65 constitutional appeals (amongst which the applicant ’ s one) raising that issue as being substantially the same as a matter that had already been examined by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has thereafter rendered a number of similar decisions rejecting, on the same grounds, hundreds of constitutional appeals raising the issue of the length of pending proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings mentioned above and about the lack of an effective domestic remedy for his length-of-proceedings complaint.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Does the Constitutional Court still deal with the issue of the length of finished (as opposed to pending) proceedings?

4. Which measures have so far been taken pursuant to the Constitutional Court ’ s pilot decision no. AP-4101/15 of 10 May 2017?