I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in HALL v. ICELAND.

Judgment

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF BELJAN v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 81142/17)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
19 December 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Beljan v. Bosnia and Herzegovina,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,Georges Ravarani,Jolien Schukking, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2019,
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 20 November 2017. 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 excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning social benefits. THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She relied 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 ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
6. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 7. In the leading cases of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 134-227, ECHR 2006-V, and Dorić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 68811/13, 7 November 2017), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8. 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 length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. 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.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Scordino, cited above, §§ 267-273, and Dorić, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to dismiss the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. 12. The Court 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,
(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 19 December 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil and/or administrative proceedings)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic award in respect of non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1] [2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
81142/17
20/11/2017
Iva Beljan
06/09/1952
16/05/2006

23/05/2017

11 years and 7 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
Constitutional Court
AP-2341/15
10 May 2017

500
1,200
100

Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic award in respect of non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1] [2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
81142/17
20/11/2017
Iva Beljan
06/09/1952
16/05/2006

23/05/2017

11 years and 7 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
Constitutional Court
AP-2341/15
10 May 2017

500
1,200
100
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2]. Less any amounts which may have been already paid in that regard at the domestic level. [3]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.