Case No.: CH/99/2425, CH/99/2426, CH/99/2427, CH/99/2428, CH/99/2429, CH/99/2430, CH/99/2431, CH/99/2433, CH/99/2434 and CH/99/2435
Applicant: Ne|eljko UBOVIC, Ilija UBOVIC, Mla|en UBOVIC, Radovan HAJDER, Mihajlo TRAVAR, Pero KRCMAR, Stoja JUZBASIC, Nikola (Riste) HAJDER, Pane SAVIJA and Zdravko RADICIC
Respondent Party: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Other Title: "Glamoc Cases"
Date Delivered: 7 September 2001

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS

Factual Background

The cases concern the attempts of the ten applicants, all of Serb origin, who were displaced in 1995, to return to their privately-owned property consisting of agricultural land and buildings in the municipality of Glamoc in the Federation. The properties concerned are located within a military training range used by the Federation Army. The area north of Glamoc, in which the applicants' property is located, was designated for the construction of a combat training centre of the Federation Army in May 1998.

In October 1998 the Federation passed a procedural decision allowing the Ministry of Defence of the Federation to take possession of the real estate before valid procedural decisions on expropriation were issued. Previously, in 1997, the Federation had started construction works on a "tank-range" in the southern part of the military training range. From 9 July 1998 to 22 August 1998 two training exercises took place during which no high explosive ammunition was fired. A third "laser-exercise" was held in September 2000. All ten applicants own property within the wider area of the military range, while five applicants own or co-own property within the "tank-range."

Admissibility

Finding that no effective remedy was available to the applicants which could have afforded redress in respect of the breaches alleged, and that because the combat training centre project was designed for the purposes of the Federation Army, the applications were correctly directed against the Federation, the Chamber declared the applications admissible.

Merits

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

With regard to the five applicants who own or co-own property in the "tank-range," the Chamber found that the Federation's interference with their property was a "deprivation of possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 even though the applicants were still formally owners of the property. As it was not possible for the applicants to enjoy their property in the way they wished, the respondent Party had taken de facto possession of the area of the tank-range. This deprivation was not justified because the expropriation proceedings initiated by the respondent Party were not carried out in accordance with the appropriate law. Thus there was a violation of the second sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

With regard to all ten applicants, who own property within the wider area of the military range, although they were not formally deprived of their possessions at any time, the Chamber found that the Federation's actions constituted an interference with the applicants' rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions that was not in accordance with the law. Thus there was a violation of the first sentence of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Article 8 of the Convention

With regard to the applicants who did not have their permanent residence in the area of the combat training centre, the Chamber found that their properties did not constitute a "home," and thus that Article 8 had not been violated.

With regard to the applicants who lived in the "tank-range," the Chamber found that their properties were their "homes" for the purposes of Article 8. As the respondent Party interfered with the applicants' rights to respect for their homes and did not act in accordance with the law, there was a violation of Article 8.

With regard to the applicants who lived in the wider area of the military training range, the Chamber found that they used their houses as their homes until they were forced to leave in 1995 due to the hostilities. While it was their intention to return to their homes when it was safe to do so, the practical effect of the Federation's actions was to leave the applicants in legal uncertainty about the future of those properties. The Federation's actions constituted an interference with the applicants' right to respect for home that was not in accordance with the law. Thus there was a violation of Article 8.
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention

In view of its findings that there was a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and also in view of its findings in respect of Article 8, the Chamber found it unnecessary to examine the cases separately under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, which guarantees the right to liberty of movement.

Discrimination

The Chamber noted that all the applicants are of Serb ethic origin and that, before the hostilities, the Glamoc area was owned by citizens of Serb ethnic origin. On the other hand, the area was indicated to the respondent Party as a suitable military training ground by SFOR, and even before the hostilities, the Yugoslav National Army had conducted military exercises in the Glamoc area. Thus the Chamber could not find that the selection of the area for a military training range was connected to the applicants' ethnicity. The Chamber found that the failure of the respondent Party to fulfill its obligations under the law did not amount to differential treatment toward the applicants, and thus that no discrimination on the ground of national origin against the applicants could be established.

Article 6 of the Convention

The Chamber found that, as the case primarily raised issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and in light of the findings it made in respect of that Article, and also in respect of Article 8, it was not necessary for it to examine the case under Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing.

Article 9 of the Convention

The Chamber found that, as it is possible at all times, except during military exercises, to enter the area of the combat training centre and to visit the churches and cemeteries in the area, which are protected by embankments, and given its findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and in respect of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, it was not necessary to examine the case separately under Article 9, which guarantees freedom of religion.

Remedies

The Chamber ordered the Federation to decide either to pursue the expropriation in regard to the property of each individual applicant in accordance with the relevant law, or not to pursue the planned expropriations, returning the property to the applicants and compensating them for all damage that has arisen from its actions which led to the violations of the applicants' rights; and in either case, to take steps to comply with the consequences of its decision and to make available funds for the necessary compensation of the applicants.

The Chamber also ordered the Federation to pay to each of the ten applicants KM 5,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damages; and to pay to the applicants Nikola (Riste) Hajder, Zdravko Radicic and Pane Savija KM 300-400 as compensation for travel expenses to attend the hearings of the Chamber.

Decision adopted 3 September 2001
Decision delivered 7 September 2001