13501/24

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF SANTRAČ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 13501/24)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 29 January 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Santrač v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Anne Louise Bormann, President,  Sebastian Răduleţu,  András Jakab, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 April 2024. 2.  The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision issued in her favour against the City of Bihać. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 5.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in her favour and relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 6.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 7.  In the leading cases of Spahić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514/15 and 15 others, §§ 25-31, 14 November 2017 and Kunić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 68955/12 and 15 others, §§ 26-31, 14 November 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.  The Court further notes that the domestic court decision in the present application ordered the City of Bihać to pay the applicant 18,000 convertible marks (BAM) (approximately 9,205 euros (EUR)) (plus default interest rate) as compensation for material damage (for further details see the appended table). The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Spahić and Others, cited above, §§ 36-43, and Kunić and Others, cited above, §§ 37-46), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. 12.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the domestic decision which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic decision; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Anne Louise Bormann  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] [2] 13501/24 25/04/2024 Dušanka SANTRAČ   Bihać Municipal Court, 12/12/2008 The City of Bihać was ordered to pay the applicant 18,000 convertible marks (BAM) (approximately 9,205 euros (EUR)) (plus default interest rate) as compensation for material damage caused when the building in which the applicant’s apartment was located was demolished due to deterioration. 22/07/2013   pending More than 12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 28 day(s)   1,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.