in the cases of

ESFAK PLETILIĆ and 19 OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIKA SRPSKA
(Cases Nos. CH/98/659 et al.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

During the war, the applicants were forced to leave their properties, all of which were located in the Gradiška area in the Republika Srpska. These properties are or were occupied by refugees or displaced persons of Serb origin. The cases concern their attempts to regain possession of their properties. The applicants tried all or some of the following methods to do so: applying to the Ministry for Refugees and Displaced Persons under the appropriate laws and initiating court proceedings before the Municipal Court in Gradiška. Some of the applicants succeeded in regaining possession of all or part of their properties, but the majority of them had not done so.

FINDINGS OF THE CHAMBER

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The Chamber held that the rejection by the Municipal Court of the applicants' cases was a violation of their right to a fair trial in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. This applied to all applicants, even if they had not initiated such proceedings, as all such proceedings were rejected by the Municipal Court. 

Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

The Chamber held that the failure of the authorities of the Republika Srpska to process the applicants' applications to regain possession of their properties and to allow them to actually regain such possession was a violation of their right to respect for their homes, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and also of their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

Discrimination

The Chamber held that the applicants had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of the above rights. This was because the law on the Use of Abandoned Property, under which the applicants had sought to regain possession of their properties, was only used to prevent persons of Bosniak origin from regaining possession of their properties, as only Bosniaks were required to leave their properties in the first place. As a result, the effect of the application of this law was discriminatory. Although the Republika Srpska has adopted the law on the Cessation of the Application of the Law on the Use of Abandoned Property to remedy the violations caused by the previous law, it was not possible yet to tell if the new law was having this effect in practice.

REMEDIES

The Chamber ordered the Republika Srpska to enable the applicants who had not already done so to regain possession of their properties as soon as possible. It also ordered the Republika Srpska to pay compensation for moral suffering and for rent the applicants were forced to pay while waiting to regain possession of their properties. These amounts ranged in each case from KM 1,200 to KM 6,400. 

Mr. Vitomir Popović attached a Dissenting Opinion to the decision.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW

The respondent Party requested the plenary Chamber to review the decision adopted by one of the two Panels. On 5 November 1999 the plenary Chamber rejected the request for review.