24139/20

WyrokETPCz2022-06-09ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0609JUD002413920

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy niewykonanie orzeczenia krajowego wydanego na korzyść skarżącego stanowi naruszenie prawa do rzetelnego procesu sądowego, gwarantowanego przez art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał przypomniał, że wykonanie orzeczenia wydanego przez jakikolwiek sąd musi być traktowane jako integralna część „rozprawy” dla celów art. 6 Konwencji. Odwołał się do swojego ugruntowanego orzecznictwa dotyczącego niewykonania lub opóźnionego wykonania prawomocnych orzeczeń krajowych. Stwierdził, że w niniejszej sprawie władze krajowe nie podjęły wszelkich niezbędnych wysiłków, aby w pełni i w terminie wykonać decyzję na korzyść skarżącego, co doprowadziło do naruszenia art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji.
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, Nusret Šabanović, złożył skargę przeciwko Bośni i Hercegowinie w związku z niewykonaniem orzeczenia krajowego wydanego na jego korzyść. Orzeczenie to zostało wydane przez Sąd Miejski w Tuzli w dniu 14 listopada 2014 r., a okres niewykonania rozpoczął się 11 lutego 2015 r. i trwał ponad 7 lat, 1 miesiąc i 20 dni.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: uznaje skargę za dopuszczalną; stwierdza, że skarga ujawnia naruszenie art. 6 § 1 Konwencji w związku z niewykonaniem orzeczenia krajowego; orzeka, że pozwane państwo ma zapłacić skarżącemu, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli (3600 EUR za szkodę niemajątkową i 250 EUR za koszty i wydatki); orzeka, że odsetki za zwłokę będą naliczane od upływu trzymiesięcznego terminu do dnia zapłaty.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ŠABANOVIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 24139/20)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 9 June 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Šabanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Armen Harutyunyan, President,  Jolien Schukking,  Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2022, 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 13 May 2020. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr H. Salkanović, a lawyer practising in Živinice. 3.  The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in his favour. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” 7.  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). 8.  In the leading cases of Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, ECHR 2006-XII, and Jakovljević and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 51227/16, 23 July 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Jeličić, cited above, and Jakovljević, also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic decision; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at 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 amounts 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 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Armen Harutyunyan  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (non-enforcement of domestic decisions)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location 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 (in euros)[1] [2] Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros)[3] 24139/20 13/05/2020 Nusret ŠABANOVIĆ Haris Salkanović Živinice Tuzla Municipal Court 14/11/2014   11/02/2015   pending more than 7 years, 1 month and 20 days   3,600     [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. [3] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 14.07.2026. · Źródło