FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 19887/21 and 27137/22 Ranko PRODANOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ljubinko TODOROVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 September 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Anja Seibert-Fohr , President , Faris Vehabović, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the applicants’ inability to have restored to them their pre-war military flats in Sarajevo under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) represented by their Acting Agents, Ms J. Cvijetić and Ms M. Mijić, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the second application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. When Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence, the applicants were employed in the army of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Being stationed in Sarajevo, they were allocated military flats there. They did not buy those flats but held an occupancy right on them (see Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 12959/05 and 5 others, 3 May 2012; contrast Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 6518/04, 27 May 2010). They left their flats when the war started and formally joined foreign armed forces. For that reason, their restitution claims were rejected after the war (pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998). As regards application no. 19887/21, on 20 April 2016 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found a breach of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s pre-war flat. While reiterating that it was not disproportionate to reject restitution claims regarding military flats pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant had to be given fair compensation should it be established that he had not been allocated another military flat. In application no. 27137/22, on 3 November 2021 (the decision served on the applicant on 19 November 2021) the Constitutional Court found no breach of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s pre-war flat.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

2. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

3. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about their inability to have restored to them their pre-war military flats in Sarajevo. The Government claimed that the applicants had abused their right of application by omitting to provide all the facts relevant to their applications. Notably, the applicant in application no. 19887/21 had omitted to inform the Court that he had been allocated another military flat in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the applicant in application no. 27137/22 had omitted to inform the Court that he had been granted a plot of land and State aid for the building of a house. The applicants did not dispute those facts but considered them irrelevant.

4. In accordance with the Court’s case-law (see, among many authorities, Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014), the submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information. The Court considers that the information omitted in the present case concerns the very core of the case (see Mago and Others , cited above, §§ 104-05, in which the Court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of those applicants who had been allocated another military flat in the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or obtained a mortgage loan co-financed by the military authorities of one of the successor States of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and, for illustrative purposes, Jakovljević and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.) [Committee], nos. 9544/12 and 11 others, 14 December 2021). The Court further considers that no sufficient explanation has been provided in the present case for the failure to disclose that information.

5. Lawyers must understand that, having due regard to the Court’s duty to examine allegations of human rights violations, they must show a high level of professional prudence and meaningful cooperation with the Court by sparing it the introduction of unmeritorious complaints and, both before proceedings have been instituted and thereafter, they must inquire diligently into all the details of the case, meticulously abide by all the relevant rules of procedure and must urge their clients to do the same. Otherwise, the willful or negligent misuse of the Court’s resources may undermine the credibility of lawyers’ work in the eyes of the Court and even, if it occurs systematically, may result in particular individual lawyers being banned from representing applicants under Rule 36 § 4 of the Rules of Court (see Stevančević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 67618/09, § 29, 10 January 2017).

6. In the light of the above, the Court upholds the Government’s objection that the applicants’ conduct amounted to an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. The applications must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 September 2023.

Valentin Nicolescu Anja Seibert-Fohr Acting Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

19887/21

Prodanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

07/04/2021

Ranko PRODANOVIĆ 1960 Nevesinje Bosnia and Herzegovina

Omar ETEROVIĆ

2.

27137/22

Todorović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

17/05/2022

Ljubinko TODOROVIĆ 1965 Banja Luka Bosnia and Herzegovina

Arsenije BALTIĆ