STEVANČEVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Inadmissible
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary
1. The applicant, Mr Stevan Stevančević, is a Bosnian and Serbian national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Igalo, Montenegro. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Latinović, a lawyer practising in Igalo. 2. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Ms M. Mijić. 3. The Serbian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right. 4. The applicant was an officer of the JNA, the armed forces of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The present case concerns his attempt to regain possession of his pre-war flat in Sarajevo. 5. The detailed background concerning socially owned flats, military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is provided in Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 6518/04, §§ 5-17, 27 May 2010 and Mago and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 12959/05 et al., §§ 5-8, 3 May 2012. 6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. In 1984 the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in Sarajevo. 8. On 13 February 1992 he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act 1990 and paid the full purchase price in the amount of 595,066 Yugoslav dinars (approximately 7,067 German marks (DEM) at the time). 9. When the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina on 19 May 1992, the applicant continued his military career in the VJ forces and left Sarajevo. His military service was terminated in 1999. 10. During the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina the flats of those who had fled were declared “abandoned” and allocated to new occupants (see Mago and Others, cited above, § 53). On 7 September 1998 the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat to the competent administrative authority in the Sarajevo Canton. 11. Following one remittal on procedural grounds, on 14 November 2002 his application was rejected pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998. On 28 July 2003 the competent Ministry of the Sarajevo Canton upheld that decision. 12. On 25 September 2006 the Sarajevo Cantonal Court (“the Cantonal Court”), following an application for judicial review, upheld the second-instance decision of 28 July 2003. 13. On 10 June 2009 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal and upheld the impugned decisions. 14. On 11 February 2001 the applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber (a domestic human-rights body set up under Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement) about his inability to repossess his pre-war flat. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 15. On 12 May 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant 1,000 convertible marks (BAM; approximately 500 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage in this connection. As regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Commission concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been justified. However, it ordered the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure the applicant’s right to compensation for his pre-war flat envisaged under section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997, without further delay and at the latest within three months from the delivery of that decision. 16. On 5 July 2005 the government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the applicant to provide his contact and bank account details in order to pay the awarded compensation. The applicant provided those details. 17. On 28 January 2006 the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Human Rights Commission of 12 May 2005. On 14 March 2006 the Constitutional Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the case. 18. On 5 July 2004 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Sarajevo Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) seeking to establish the validity of the purchase contract of 13 February 1992 (see paragraph 8 above) and to register his title to the flat in the land register. 19. On 19 June 2005 the Municipal Court declared the purchase contract legally valid. However, it rejected the applicant’s claim to have his title registered. Under the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997 those who served in foreign armed forces after the 1992-95 war, like the applicant, were not entitled to repossess their pre-war military flats and to register their title, but were entitled to compensation. On 19 November 2008 the Cantonal Court upheld that judgment. 20. The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant. However, they provided additional information as follows. 21. On 20 April 2007 the applicant received BAM 42,085.04 (approximately EUR 21,496.24) in compensation for his pre-war flat in accordance with section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997 as ordered by the Human Rights Commission (see paragraph 15 above). The amount was transferred to his bank account in Montenegro. 22. The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Aleksić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 38233/05, §§ 16-18, 3 February 2015).