LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
FAJKOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA and 8 other applications
Doc ref: 38868/17;44645/17;54062/17;54084/17;56581/17;73563/17;80059/17;80702/17;84703/17 • ECHR ID: 001-188748
Document date: November 27, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
FAJKOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA and 8 other applications
Doc ref: 38868/17;44645/17;54062/17;54084/17;56581/17;73563/17;80059/17;80702/17;84703/17 • ECHR ID: 001-188748
Document date: November 27, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 27 November 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 38868/17 Zlatko FAJKOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 8 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern decisions dismissing, as being unjustified, the applicants ’ claims for reimbursement of some costs and expenses because they would not have been incurred had the applicants chosen lawyers whose offices were not outside the court seat. In a similar case, the Constitutional Court decided that such a finding was arbitrary (see its decision AP-3310/14 of 27 October 2015). However, it decided otherwise in the present cases.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of conflicting decisions of the Constitutional Court (see, for instance, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, 20 October 2011)? In this regard, the parties are requested to indicate on how many occasions the Constitutional Court has reached the same conclusion as in its decision AP-3310/14 of 27 October 2015.
2. Did the Constitutional Court adequately state reasons on which it based its decisions in the present applicants ’ cases, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999 ‑ I)?
3. Were the findings of the domestic courts regarding the applicants ’ claims for costs and expenses arbitrary and for that reason contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § § 60-65, ECHR 2015)? If so, has there also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In this connection, the parties are requested to provide an interpretation by the Bar Council of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina of item 30 of its tariff and by the Bar Council of the Republika Srpska of item 11 of its tariff (notably, whether the items in question could be considered to mean that domestic courts have a discretion to award only those costs and expenses which they find to be justified or they must award all costs and expenses which have been paid, or are to be paid, pursuant to the relevant tariff)?
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth Place of residence
Represented by
1
38868/17
15/05/2017
Zlatko FAJKOVIĆ
29/08/1978
Bihać
Jerko ČILIĆ
2
44645/17
09/06/2017
USLUGE d.o.o .
Ugljevik
Sejfudin KRNJIĆ
3
54062/17
19/07/2017
Milosava MILIĆ
10/11/1967
Trebinje
Jerko ČILIĆ
4
54084/17
19/07/2017
KARLIKO export-import d.o.o .
Ljubuški
Jerko ČILIĆ
5
56581/17
26/07/2017
Milan MIHALJEVIĆ
29/11/1968
Ljubuški
Jerko ČILIĆ
6
73563/17
30/09/2017
Marijan MILIĆEVIĆ
Ljubuški
Jerko ČILIĆ
7
80059/17
11/11/2017
Edis DEDIĆ
10/03/1978
Bihać
Jerko ČILIĆ
8
80702/17
11/11/2017
Senad ĆATIĆ
23/08/1972
Bihać
Jerko ČILIĆ
9
84703/17
08/12/2017
Tomislav KRALJEVIĆ
20/03/1977
Å iroki Brijeg
Jerko ČILIĆ
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
