Case No.: CH/00/6143 and 6150
Applicant: Mara TURUNDZIC and Smiljka FRANCIC
Respondent Party: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date Delivered: 8 February 2001

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS

Factual Background

The applicants are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are both the pre-war occupancy right holders of apartments in Mostar. Both applicants left their apartments due to the war hostilities. The cases concern their attempts to regain possession of their apartments. Both applicants lodged applications to the Commission for Real Property Claims ("CRPC"), which issued decisions recognising their occupancy rights. Both applicants filed requests for the execution of the CRPC decisions before the competent municipal organ, but did not receive any response. At the time of the Chamber's consideration, the CRPC decisions had not been executed.

Admissibility

Noting that the applicants had made repeated attempts to have the CRPC decisions enforced and they had been unsuccessful, the Chamber was satisfied that the applicants could not be required to pursue any further remedy provided by domestic law, and declared the case admissible.

Merits

Article 8 of the Convention

The Chamber noted that under the Law on Implementation of the Decisions of the Commission for Real Property Claims the competent administrative organ is obliged to issue a conclusion on permission of enforcement within a period of 30 days from the date when the request for enforcement is submitted. At the time of the Chamber's consideration, the applicants had still not received a decision on their requests to have the CRPC decisions enforced, despite the time-limit for this having expired 15 months before. Thus the failure of the competent administrative organ to decide upon their requests was not "in accordance with the law" and there was a violation of the rights of the applicants to respect for their home as guaranteed by Article 8.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

For the same reasons as given in the context of its examination of the case under Article 8, the Chamber found that the failure of the competent administrative organ to decide upon the applicant's requests was contrary to the law, and thus that there was a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Remedies

The Chamber ordered the Federation to enable the applicants to regain possession of their apartments without further delay; to pay to each of the applicants KM 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; to pay to each of the applicants KM 1,600 as compensation for the loss of use of the apartments and for any extra costs during the time the applicants have been forced to live in alternative accommodation; and to pay to each of the applicants KM 100 for each further month that they continued to be forced to live in alternative accommodation as from 1 March 2001 until the end of the month in which they would be reinstated.

Decision adopted 5 February 2001
Decision delivered 8 February 2001