Case No.: CH/00/4566, 4674, 5180, 5213, 5216 and 5593
Applicant: Bajazid JUSIĆ, Adem ŠEHOVIĆ, Mustafa ŠUKILOVIĆ, Mehmed VELAGIĆ, Mehmedalija REDŽIĆ and Salih AJDAREVIĆ
Respondent Party: Republika Srpska
Date Delivered: 7 June 2002

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS

Factual Background

TThe applicants are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Bosniak origin. They are all pre-war occupancy right holders of apartments or owners of houses in the Municipality of Bijeljina in Republika Srpska. The cases concern the applicants' attempts to regain possession of their apartments or houses. All applicants have lodged applications to the CRPC, which has issued decisions confirming their occupancy rights or ownership as the case may be. However, the competent authorities have failed to execute those decisions.

Admissibility

Noting that the applicants had made repeated attempts to have the CRPC decision 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 applications admissible.

Merits

Article 8 of the Convention

Noting that the applicants' apartments are their "homes" for the purposes of Article 8, the Chamber recalled that the CRPC had issued decisions confirming the applicants' right to repossess their apartments. The applicants were unable to regain possession of their apartments due to the failure of the authorities of the Republika Srpska to deal effectively with their requests for the enforcement of the CRPC decisions. The result of the inaction of the respondent Party was that the applicants could not return to their homes, and thus there was an ongoing interference with the applicants' right to respect for their homes. As the failure of the competent administrative organ to decide upon the applicants' requests was not "in accordance with the law," the Chamber found a violation of the applicants' rights under Article 8.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

Noting that the applicants' apartments constituted "possessions" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Chamber considered that the failure of the authorities of the respondent Party to allow the applicants to regain possession of the apartments was an ongoing "interference" with the right to peaceful enjoyment of that possession. For the same reasons as given in its examination under Article 8, the Chamber found that this interference was contrary to the law, and thus that there was a violation of the right of the applicants under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention

Considering that it had found violations of the applicants' rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Chamber did not consider it necessary to examine the cases under Articles 6 and 13.

Remedies

The Chamber ordered the Republika Srpska to enable the applicants to regain possession of their apartments or houses without further delay and at the latest one month after the date on which the decision became final and binding. The Chamber further ordered the Republika Srpska to pay the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage, compensation for the loss of use of their homes, and compensation for each further month that they would remain excluded from their apartments or houses.

Decision adopted 10 May 2002
Decision delivered 7 June 2002


DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW

The respondent Party submitted a request for review arguing, inter alia, that the applications should have been declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; that the Chamber had failed to take into account the "chronological order" principle in the handling of property cases by the authorities; that the respondent Party was not responsible for any loss and that the amount of compensation was excessive.

The Chamber found that the request for review did not meet the conditions set out in Rule 64(2) of its Rules of Procedure and decided to reject the request for review.

Decision adopted 6 September 2002