There is a violation of the right to have a decision within the reasonable time under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the competent prosecutor’s office has conducted investigation 4 years against several persons in the case considered as extremely complex and significant to the appellant, where he failed to offer any reason which could be regarded as reasonable and justified for the excessive length of the proceedings and to take lawful measures aiming at conclusion of the investigation.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2130/09 of 28 May 2010, paragraph 59, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 95/10; the length of the investigation; a violation of Article 6 and of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court finds that the period of 2 years and 9 months, which was necessary for the enforcement of a legally binding judgment, cannot be attributed to the Municipal Court as the appellants did not act one year and nine months, which was the period within which the UPI Bank did not send any information about the enforcement procedure and within which there was no proceedings conducted by the court. In this connection, the Constitutional Court holds that the appellant’s right to a trial within the reasonable time as an aspect of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention has not been violated.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1174/08 of 21 December 2010, paragraph 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 47/11; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
There is a violation of the right to have a decision within the reasonable time as an aspect of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the length of the court proceedings upon the appellant’s claim for modification of the decision on guardianship, which was taken by the Social Welfare Center, as a parental dispute within the meaning of Article 272 of the Family Law, which was of urgent nature under Article 273 of the same Law, was three years and ten days. Such an unjustified length of the proceedings can entirely be attributed to the conduct of the ordinary courts, which failed to give objective and justified reasons for such an excessive length of the proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3073/09 of 7 April 2011, paragraph 55, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 65/11; modification of the decision on child custody; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court concludes that there is a violation of the right to a decision within a reasonable time under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, as the decision on the merits in the appellant’s case, relating to a request for determination of her right to severance pay and the collection of the severance payment for unlawful termination of her employment, was taken seven years and six months after the date on which the appellant had filed her request in the case which was not complex and in which the administrative authorities failed to offer any objective or reasonable justification for such a conduct. The mentioned conduct was reflected in the first instance authority’s failure to take a decision on the appellant’s request, the second instance authority’s failure to take a decision on the appellant’s appeal related to the silence of the administration and in the fact that the latter authority adopted the respective decision five months after the County Court had passed its decision in the administrative dispute, and irrespective of the fact that the appellant had the possibility to lodge her appeal or to initiate the administrative dispute at an earlier point, since the aforementioned legal remedies were available to the appellant only as an opportunity prescribed by the law, where the actions by the administrative authorities did not depend on that opportunity and they were required to act within the time limits prescribed by law.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3570/08 of 15 July 2011, paragraph 36, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 104/11;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits AP 3554/08 of 21 July 2011, paragraph 40; administrative proceedings, silence of administration, violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court concludes that there was no violation of the right to a fair hearing with regards to a decision within the reasonable time as an aspect of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the overall length of the proceedings related to the compensation for damages was 13 years, and almost 7 months under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, may be attributed to the greatest extent to the appellant’s passivity and his lack of interest, where the inactivity of the courts was not of crucial significance.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2731/09 of 13 November 2012, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 101/12; compensation for non-pecuniary damage for deterioration of health – occupational disease – due to mental pain; additional expertise; the appellant failed to initiate resumption of the proceedings; there has been no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The Constitutional Court concludes that there was no violation of the right to have a decision within the reasonable time under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, although the investigation in the criminal proceedings took more than four years because the investigation was extensive and complex and involved several persons, including the appellant. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court took into account the fact that following the investigation the criminal proceedings was concluded within a time limit of eight months at two court instances.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4340/10 of 15 January 2014, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/14; criminal proceedings, investigation; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution BiH
The Constitutional Court concludes that there was no violation of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention when the stay of the bankruptcy proceedings, which have been pending for four years, lasted for more than two years due to the circumstances which could not be attributed to the competent court as it made efforts to overcome such circumstances in accordance with its powers prescribed by the law and when following the removal of the circumstances causing the stay there was not anything which would lead to the conclusion that they were not conducted with necessary diligence and principle of promptness.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2699/11 of 25 June 2014, paragraph 141, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 64/14; bankruptcy; there was no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention with regards to the adoption of a decision within the reasonable time in the situation when the enforcement proceedings, which are regarded as urgent under the express law provisions due to the objective circumstances, have lasted two years and ten months and have not been concluded yet.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3595/12 of 25 June 2014, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 63/14; enforcement procedure, there has been no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The Constitutional Court concludes that all proceedings complained of in the appeals being the subject of this decision have been in violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the proceedings in each individual case were excessively lengthy, whereas the courts did not give any reasonable justification for it. In addition, despite the measures taken to resolve the excessive length of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court holds that the lengthy proceedings were the consequence of systemic gaps in the justice system and failure to effectively organize the responsibilities of different levels of public authorities in this field, which amounted to a systemic violation of the rights before the ordinary courts.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4101/15 of 10 May 2017, paragraph 117, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/17; civil procedure, a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 13 of the European Convention established
The Constitutional Court notes that the fact that some measures have been taken with the aim of resolving the cases more efficiently cannot be accepted if such measures did not achieve the expected diligence, which, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, consisted of the Cantonal Court’s obligation to examine all relevant legal circumstances which had taken place before the lawsuit was brought and to take into account the length of the proceedings before the administrative authorities and before the court (the total period of eight years), wherein, the case had been remitted for new proceedings on several occasions. Therefore, the Constitutional Court holds that the Cantonal Court, when dealing with the lawsuit from 2016, should have taken into account the fact that renewal of administrative proceedings (due to the annulment of administrative acts and remittal of the case for new administrative proceedings) consisted justified reasons for reinforced action of the court during the administration of the proceedings and should have been more diligent in the light of all administrative and judicial proceedings with the aim of fulfilling the safeguards related to the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention, more specifically the right to have a decision within a reasonable time. Taking into account the analysed circumstances in the present case and relevant standards, the Constitutional Court holds that the length of the proceedings (administrative dispute), i.e. more than two years, which are still pending, does not a priori meet the standards of “reasonable” length of the proceedings and could be justified only in special circumstances.
Taking into account all the foregoing, the Constitutional Court concludes that in the present case the appellants’ right to a fair trial within the reasonable time under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention has been violated.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2012/18 of 6 June 2018; administrative procedure, a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
