in the case of

MARIJA STANIVUK v. THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Case No. CH/97/51)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The applicant, of Serb descent, ran a barber shop in Sarajevo before the war, but lived in Grbavica. During the war she was unable to cross the front lines to reach her shop. After the war she was prevented from re-entering her shop by R.M., a Bosniak who was running a barber shop at that location. The applicant initiated court proceedings to be reinstated into her shop. These proceedings have been pending since 1996 and have been repeatedly adjourned. The applicant alleged violations of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time before an impartial tribunal. She also alleged a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and complains that she has been discriminated against on the basis of her ethnic origin. 

FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER

Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The Chamber found there to be a dispute regarding the applicant's "civil rights" within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 but found no evidence that the Sarajevo Municipal Court had been partial in the examination of the applicant's action. The Chamber concluded, however, that the trial had lasted beyond a reasonable time, as her case had remained pending for a period of three years involving ten hearings. It also noted that a speedy outcome of the dispute would have been of particular importance to the applicant, as the question concerned her livelihood. Article 6 paragraph 1 had therefore been violated. 

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

The Chamber found that the applicant's business enterprise, including her rights under the lease, were economic assets constituting her "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. By withholding the business premises in violation of its obligation under the lease, the Municipality had therefore interfered with the applicant's rights under that provision. Although the premises could justifiably be allocated to R.M. in the situation prevailing during the war, the lease with the applicant was never legally terminated after the war ended. The Municipality's refusal to allow the applicant to return to the premises was thus not "subject to the conditions provided for by law" as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which had therefore been violated.

Discrimination

The Chamber found no evidence that the applicant was discriminated against on the basis of her ethnic origin in the enjoyment of her rights under Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

REMEDIES

The Chamber ordered the respondent Party to reinstate the applicant into her business premises and to pay her compensation for lost income during the period from January 1997 up to and including June 1999 in the amount of KM 7,500. It ordered further compensation for lost income in the amount of KM 250 per month for each month starting on 1 July 1999 in which the applicant has not been reinstated into her business premises and KM 1,000 for legal expenses. 

REQUEST FOR REVIEW

The respondent Party requested the plenary Chamber to review the decision adopted by one of the two Panels. On 9 September 1999 the plenary Chamber rejected the request for review.