CASE OF SANTRAČ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Santrač v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic court decision in favor of the applicant. The applicant complained that the City of Bihać had failed to comply with a court order to pay her compensation for material damage. The ECHR found that this non-enforcement violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court emphasized that the execution of a judgment is an integral part of a “hearing” under Article 6 and that the failure to enforce the decision constituted an infringement of the applicant’s rights. The Court ordered Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decision and to pay the applicant 1,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
The decision follows a standard structure, beginning with the procedure, outlining the facts of the case, and then addressing the legal issues. The core of the judgment lies in the “The Law” section, where the Court assesses the alleged violations of the Convention. It references previous case law, particularly Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, which dealt with similar issues of non-enforcement of domestic judgments. The Court then applies Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicant. The judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the application admissible, holding that there was a breach of the Convention, and ordering the respondent State to enforce the domestic decision and pay compensation. There are no changes compared to previous versions.
The most important provisions of this decision are the reaffirmation that the enforcement of a domestic judgment is an integral part of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 and the recognition that a domestic court decision ordering payment constitutes “possessions” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. This means that the state has an obligation to ensure that such judgments are effectively enforced. The decision also highlights the ongoing issue of non-enforcement of court decisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as evidenced by the references to previous similar cases.
