sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bosnia (region), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Herzegovina, Sarajevo

Last updated: July 2021 and

Ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 2002

National Judge: Faris Vehabović (2012-2021) Judges’ CVs are available on the ECHR Internet site Previous Judge: Ljiljana Mijović (2004-2011) List of judges of the Court since 1959

The Court dealt with 2,059 applications concerning in 2020, of which 2,040 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 8 judgments (concerning 19 applications), which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Applications Applications pending before the 2019 2020 2021* processed in court on 01/07/2021

Applications allocated 1783 870 390 Applications pending before a judicial 468 to a judicial formation formation: Communicated to the 395 144 14 Single Judge 391 Government Applications decided: 1037 2059 326 Committee (3 Judges) 74

- Declared 602 1650 256 Chamber (7 Judges) 3 inadmissible or struck out (Single Judge) Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 0 - Declared 56 330 22 inadmissible or struck out (Committee) - Declared 0 60 0 inadmissible or struck out (Chamber) Bosnia and Herzegovina and ... - Decided by judgment 379 19 48 The Registry * to July 2021 For information about the Court’s judicial formations The task of the Registry is to provide and procedure, see the ECHR internet site legal and administrative support to the Statistics on interim measures can be found here. Court in the exercise of its judicial functions. It is composed of lawyers, administrative and technical staff and translators. There are currently 624 Registry staff members.

Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

crimes about the proceedings before that Noteworthy cases, judgments court. They complained in particular that a more stringent criminal law had been delivered applied to them retroactively than that which had been applicable at the time they Grand Chamber committed the offences. Violation of Article 7 (no punishment Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and without law) Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27.06.2017 Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and The case concerned a finding of defamation Herzegovina in civil proceedings against four 22.12.2009 organisations following the publication of a The judgment found discriminatory the letter they had written to the highest constitutional arrangements, put in place by authorities of their district complaining the Dayton Peace Agreement, according to about a person’s application for the post of which only people declaring affiliation with director of Brčko District’s multi-ethnic Bosniacs, or were eligible to radio and television station. stand for election to the tripartite State No violation of Article 10 (freedom of presidency and the second chamber of the expression) State parliament. Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and discrimination) taken together with Article 3 Herzegovina, , , of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and “The former Yugoslav of Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to ” the Convention (general prohibition of 16.07.2014 discrimination) Concerned the applicants’ inability to recover “old” foreign-currency savings – deposited with two banks in what is now Noteworthy cases, judgments Bosnia and Herzegovina – following the and decisions delivered dissolution of the former Socialist of (SFRY). Chamber The Court held: With regard to Mr Šahdanović: unanimously, that there had been a Cases dealing with the right to life violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Article 2) (protection of property) and a violation of Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) by 15.02.2011 Serbia; Disappearance during the war in Bosnia and With regard to Ms Ališić and Mr Sadžak: Herzegovina of a military commander unanimously, that there had been a leading one of the local forces at the time. violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and a No violation of Article 2, 3 (prohibition of violation of Article 13 by Slovenia; inhuman or degrading treatment) or 5 With regard to the other respondent States: (right to liberty and security) by a majority, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and no violation of Article 13, and, Cases concerning the prohibition of unanimously, that there had been no inhuman and/or degrading treatment violation of Article 14 taken together with (Article 3) Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Al Hanchi v. Bosnie-Herzegovina Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and 15.11.2011 Herzegovina Complaint by a foreign mujahedin that, if 18.07.2013 he were deported to , he would be Complaints by two men convicted by the ill-treated. Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of war No violation of Article 3

2

Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina introduced following a leading ECHR 1 15.02.2011 judgment against Bosnia and Herzegovina See cases dealing with Article 2 of November 2009 in which it was held that the size of public debt could not justify Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and statutory suspension of the enforcement of Herzegovina an entire category of final judgments. The 27.05.2008 plan envisaged the enforcement of final The applicants were convicted of war judgments ordering payment of war crimes against Bosniac civilians (at the damages in cash within 13 years starting time, Bosnian Muslim) during the 1992-95 from 2013. This enforcement time-frame war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They was extended to 20 years in July 2013. complained about being persecuted, Violation of Article 6 threatened and beaten by fellow prisoners Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 from the time of their arrival in (protection of property) Prison until they were provided with separate accommodation in the prison Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and hospital unit. They further complained Herzegovina about their detention conditions in the 10.11.2009 hospital unit. A leading judgment concerning the non- Violation of Article 3 enforcement of domestic courts decisions Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective ordering the payment of war damages. remedy) Violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) Cases on Article 5 Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (right to liberty and security) 31.10.2006 Applicant not allowed to withdraw her Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina savings in foreign currency and a final (no. 2) judgment in her favour not enforced. 25.06.2019 Violation of Article 6 The case concerned a man who was held in Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 detention pending possible deportation for (protection of property) extended periods while the authorities sought a safe third country to remove him to. This case concerned his detention from Inadmissible applications July 2012. Smajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the 08.02.2018 applicant’s detention from August 2014 to The case concerned Mr Smajić’s conviction February 2016 for making a number of posts in 2010 on an No violation of Article 5 § 1 over his Internet forum describing military action detention between July 2012 and which could be undertaken against Serb March 2013 and March 2014 to in the Brčko District in the event of August 2014 another war. No violation of Article 5 § 4 (proceedings on Application declared inadmissible as lawfulness of detention) complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

Simić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Cases dealing with Article 6 08.12.2016 Right to a fair trial The case concerned Mr Simić’s removal from office as a judge of the Constitutional Đurić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Court. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 20.01.2015 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom The cases dealt with the ssettlement plan of expression), Mr Simić alleged in introduced in October 2012 by Bosnia and particular that the proceedings to dismiss Herzegovina for the enforcement of final him had been unfair and that he had been domestic judgments awarding war damages. The settlement plan was 1 Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

- 3 -

Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

removed from office because of statements Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina he had made in public via the media 27.05.2010 criticising the Constitutional Court. The applicant’s impossibility to regain Application declared inadmissible. possession of a flat – and be registered as its owner – which he had bought and left in Enforcement of domestic judicial decision following the outbreak of the Šekerović and Pašalić v. Bosnia and 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Herzegovina Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 See also Mago and Others v. Bosnia and 08.03.2011 Herzegovina, 03.05.2012 Pension rights of internally-displaced people following their return from the Republika Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Srpska to the of Bosnia and 03.11.2009 Herzegovina after the war. A pilot judgment concerning “old” Violation of Article 6 foreign-currency savings in Bosnian-based Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 banks. (protection of property) and violation of Around 1,300 similar applications have Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) been declared inadmissible since the delivery of this judgment. Private and family life cases Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (Article 8) Šobota-Gajic v. Bosnia and Inadmissible application Herzegovina Stojnić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 06.11.2007 29.10.2015 Failure by the national authorities to take The case concerned the attempt by a all reasonable measures to facilitate former officer of the armed forces of the applicant’s reunion with her son, despite former Socialist Federal Republic of domestic decisions in her favour Yugoslavia to have his pre-war flat in Violation of Article 8 Sarajevo restored to him. The Court declared the application Freedom of thought, conscious and inadmissible as abusive within the meaning religion of Article 35 (admissibility criteria) of the (Article 9) Convention.

Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Cases concerning discrimination 05.12.2017 (Articles 14 and 1 of Protocol No. 12) In 2012 Mr Hamidović, a witness in a criminal trial, was expelled from the Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina courtroom, convicted of contempt of court 29.10.2019 and fined for refusing to remove his The case concerned a legal void which skullcap. made it impossible for the applicant, a local Violation of Article 9 politician living in , to vote or stand in elections. Cases dealing with property issues Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) See also press release in Bosnian. Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Herzegovina 09.06.2016 01.10.2019 The case concerned the complaint by a The case concerned a church built by the politician residing in the Serbian Orthodox Parish on the applicants’ (one of the two constituent entities of land after they had had to flee their Bosnia and Herzegovina), who declares property during the 1992-95 war. himself as Bosniac, of the fact that it was Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 legally impossible for him to stand for Press release available in Bosnian election to the Presidency of the country.

- 4 -

Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of (general prohibition of discrimination) discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) as Zornić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for 15.07.2014 election to the House of Peoples of Bosnia Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for election and Herzegovina to the House of Peoples and the Presidency Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of Bosnia and Herzegovina because she (general prohibition of discrimination) as refused to declare affiliation to any regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for particular but declared herself election both to the House of Peoples as as a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, well as to the Presidency of Bosnia and in accordance with the Constitution, only Herzegovina those who declared affiliation with the so-called “constituent peoples” (namely, Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) were entitled to stand for election.

ECHR Press Unit Contact: +33 (0)3 90 21 42 08

- 5 -