STOJNIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Inadmissible
Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney
1. The applicant, Mr Slavko Stojnić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1961 and lives in Banja Luka. 2. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić. 3. The applicant was an officer of the JNA, the armed forces of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”). The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre-war flat in Sarajevo. 4. The detailed background concerning socially owned flats, military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the 1992-95 war in Bosnia in 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, 19724/05, 47860/06, 8367/08, 9872/09 and 11706/09, §§ 5-8, 3 May 2012. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. In 1983 the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in Sarajevo. 6. On an unknown date in 1992 he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act 1990 and paid the full purchase price in the amount of 182,953 Yugoslav dinars (approximately 2,152 German marks (DEM) at the time). 7. 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 1998. 8. On 29 January 1999 the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in Sarajevo. On 4 April 2001 his application was rejected pursuant to section 3a of the Restitution of Flats Act 1998. On 23 November 2001 the competent Ministry of the Sarajevo Canton rejected his appeal as submitted out of time. 9. On 8 February 1999 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. 10. On 8 March 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because 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 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure the applicant’s right to compensation 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. 11. On the same date, the applicant initiated proceedings before the Sarajevo Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract and to register his title to the flat in the land register. On 1 October 2007 the Municipal Court declared the purchase contract legally valid. However, it rejected the applicant’s claim to have his title registered. The court held that under the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997 those who served in foreign armed forces after the 1992-95 war, like the present 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 Sarajevo Cantonal Court upheld that judgment. 12. On 28 December 2005 the Ministry of Defence of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina allocated the flat to M.H., a member of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 13. On 4 December 2013 the Ministry for Defence of the Republic of Serbia informed the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that the applicant’s right to allocation of a military-flat in Serbia had been established by the competent authorities. 14. The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant. However, they provided additional information as follows. 15. On 19 April 2007 the applicant received BAM 15,979.68 (approximately EUR 8,170) in compensation for his prewar flat in Sarajevo in accordance with section 39e of the Privatisation of Flats Act 1997, as ordered by the Commission for Human Rights (see paragraph 10 above). 16. The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in Aleksić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 38233/05, §§ 16-18, 3 February 2015).