Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. Challenges for Respective National Responses to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Table of contents

Table of contents

List of ilustration

List of abbreviations

Summary

1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Method and Material

2 The Right to a Trail within a Reasonable Time as the Perspective for the Improvement of the Judiciaries in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia
2.1 The Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time as Defined by the ECHR
2.2 The Genesis of the Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time and the Current Challenges of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Judicial System
2.3 The Genesis of the Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time and the Current Challenges of Serbia's Judicial System
2.4 Roots of Challenges for the National Judiciaries' Responses to the Obligation under Article
2.4.1 Law on Protection of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time as the Response of Serbia to Obligations under Article 6 - Possible Challenges in the Law Enforcement
2.4.2 Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Proactive Role as a Call for Response of the Competent National Authorities
2.5 Concluding Remarks

3 Cases in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia Under Enhanced Supervision
3.1 Sejdić and Finci Group of Cases - Causes of Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, Article 14 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR
3.1.1 Constitutional Reality as a Nine-Year-Long Limbo between the ECHR's Obligations and the Lack of Affirmative Actions of the National Authorities
3.1.2 Implementation of the ECtHR's Judgement in the Case of Sejdić and Finci as a Hostage of Unresolved Croatian Issue in Bosni and Herzegovina
3.2 Cases of Đokić v Bosnia and Herzegovina and Mago and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina - Causes of Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR
3.2.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina's Authorities' Reluctance to Enforce the judgement in the case of Đokić and the case of Mago and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina
3.3 Case of Milanović v Serbia - Main Facts Established by the ECtHR Regarding the Determined Violation of Article 1 and Article 14 of the ECHR
3.3.1 The Shortcomings in the State's Legislation as an Obstacle to the Implementation of the Judgement Milanović v Serbia
3.4 Causes of Violation of Article 8 of the ECHR as Determined by the ECtHR' Judgement in the Case of Zorica Jovanović v Serbia
3.4.1 Sources of Possible Chalenges in the Implementation of the Obligation from the Judgement in the Case of Zorica Jovanović v Serbia

4 Conclusions

5 Bibliography

List of illustrations

Fig. 1: Graph Showing the Organisation of the Court System in Bosnia and Herzegovina

List of abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Summary

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are member states of the Council of Europe (CoE), which means that they are also state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), subjected to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as the ultimate authority in interpreting of the ECHR. In addition, by ratifying the ECHR Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia also became subjects to the jurisdiction of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CM) as the ECHR's final authority entrusted with the power to monitor the implementation of a reached ECtHR's judgment by a state and finally to declare whether the judgement was enforced in accordance with demands made by the ECtHR.

Both countries publicly declared that their political priority is the accession to the European Union, which simultaneously imposes an obligation to place human rights very high on the hierarchy of pre-accession priorities.¹ Since the ECHR is embodied in the very foundation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter), Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia have to have an internally well-developed state structure that will be responsive to the obligations arising from ECHR.²

The ECtHR's judgments related to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia respectively influence various segments of these states' law enforcement, judiciary and legislative power. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing challenges for the full implementation of these judgements. The reason for this is to comprehend the states' current ability to respond to the obligations deriving from the ECHR.

The conclusions offered at the end of this thesis should serve as a solid ground for estimating the complexity of the current challenges that these countries encounter in the process of implementation of the specific ECtHR's judgments and as responding to the ECHR as a whole.

1. Introduction

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are countries that have emerged from the brake-up of Yugoslavia (Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia), a country that existed in the period 1945-1991.³ The events in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina that followed the brake-up of Yugoslavia have largely determined the future framework of delivery of justice in the field of human rights and these states' ability to respond to obligations deriving from the ECHR.

It seemed that Serbia after the brake-up of Yugoslavia became a multiparty state, but the reality was that it fell under an authoritarian regime fully controlled by one party. The authoritarian party controlling the state was the Socialist Party of Serbia, of which the president was Slobodan Milošević who, at the same time, was an absolute authoritarian ruler equipped with an oligarchic power.⁴ Serbia stayed untouched by an armed conflict on its territory during the wars occurring in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-1995) and in another former Yugoslavian republic - Croatia (1991-1995), and its judiciary, although at the time completely subjected to the ruling Socialist Party of Serbia, kept working until today in accordance with pretty much the same hierarchical court pyramided originated in the communist era.⁵ On the other hand, during the war on its territory Bosnia and Herzegovina was completely devastated humanely and institutionally, and as an aftermath of this conflict was that a constitutionally structured complex judiciary was formed. In addition, some of the major legislation regulating the judiciary in Bosnia and Herzegovina was mainly drafted and\or imposed by the international community personalized in the Office of the High Representative as the final authority in the interpretation of the Agreement on the Civilian Implementation of the Peace Settlement.⁶ The direct result of this was that three highly independent hierarchical court pyramids were created within the state, existing along with other two state courts, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Constitutional Court as sui generis court on top.⁷

After the war, the main legislative, executive and judicial branches of power-institutions were created in Bosnia and Herzegovina and after the Milosevic's regime was defeated in Serbia in 2000 by the forces of democratic changes, both countries became member states of the CoE.⁸ While Bosnia and Herzegovina signed the ECHR on 4 April 2002 and ratified it on 12 July 2002, Serbia signed the ECHR on 3 April 2003 and ratified it on 3 March 2004.⁹ The fact that deserves to be pointed out to better understand the context of delivering human rights justice in which Bosnia and Herzegovina operates is that, unlike Serbia which is a fully sovereign country, Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to be treated as an international protectorate. This has been confirmed by the latest United Nations Security Council resolution which, once again, reaffirmed the High Representatives’ competencies embodied in Article V of Annex 10 of the Peace Agreement prescribing its final authority in theatre in the interpretation of the civilian implementation of the (Peace) Agreement (Security Council of the United Nations, 7 November 2017,p.2).

Following the acts of ratifications made by Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, numerous judgements, in separate proceedings, against these countries were reached by the ECtHR. The ECtHR' judgements reached against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia respectively revealed similarities as well as differences in their post Yugoslav development in the field of delivering of human rights justice.

Some of the rendered ECtHR's judgements reveal the same or similar structural problems affecting legal systems of both counties within the area of their obligation to comply with requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR (Right to a Fair Trial) and its important integral part - the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Full enforcing of the obligations deriving from Article 6 of ECHR by a state is of outmost importance for the rightful functioning of its judiciary which, simultaneously, presents one of three separated branches of power which mutually counter-balance each other. While the other two branches of power are legislative and executive and can often be misused by different narrow particularistic interests, the prevailing role of the judiciary should be to institute a mechanism of limitations ensuring the restraint of the two branches of power within domains of their own competencies. This role of judiciary extends even further to its supreme responsibility of providing safeguard to the rights of peoples – citizens, the constituents of every state, who seek the protection of the judiciary in cases when their rights are violated by other citizens, governments and other forms of legal persons. States in which judiciaries face the challenges such as an increasing number of backlogged cases with the same or similar legal basis, lengthy judicial proceedings, an inadequate judicial infrastructure and non-enforcement of final court decisions can hardly be ensuring the protection of constitutionally and legally granted rights to citizens.

While the ECtHR's judgements determining the violation of Article 6 of ECHR, rendered in separate proceedings against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, have identified same or similar structural problems preventing these countries to fully respond to the obligation under Article 6 of the ECHR, the ECtHR' judgements currently placed under the enhanced procedure of the CM in respect of both countries treating different violation of rights of the ECHR, also reveal the lack of capacities of these countries to respond to structural and complex challenges posed by the ECHR. The latter originated in the applications concerning the inability of all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to stand for election for the state presidency and to regain their pre-war properties and, in Serbia, the lack of competent authorities to properly respond to religiously motivated crimes and to cases of missing new-borns.

Although Serbia currently enjoys the status of an EU candidate country, the fact that links these two countries is that they are still considered as transitional countries. In both countries the full process of transition from a system where the state played a major role in regulating all aspects of functioning of the society into a system where the state should provide a framework in which the economic and social processes developing freely has not been accomplished yet.¹⁰ This especially places both states in the same line and presents a starting point for a comparison of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and the development of their internal mechanisms for responding to obligations from the ECHR. In addition, both countries' high-ranking political goal is accessing the European Union, which means that their legislatures have to be prepared in order to meet all the criteria enshrined in the standards and rules of the European Union, especially those envisaged in the Negotiating Chapters Nos. 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) and 24 (Justice Freedom and Security). Following this, the state of the protection of human rights in a country plays a very important role in the negotiating process between the country and the European Union. This is especially the case if we have in mind that a whole list of articles of the ECHR corresponds to articles of the EU Charter.

All this places a significant burden on Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia when it comes to their compliance with the obligations deriving from ECHR and its mechanism embodied in the ECtHR and the CM. More specifically, it is expected from these countries to show their institutional maturity and political dedication in the execution of all judgements rendered by the ECtHR as well as their readiness to respect the international legal framework for the protection of human rights as a whole.

This thesis addresses the complex issues of the current challenges for the responses of national authorities of both countries to the obligation deriving from the judgements reached by the ECtHR. In addition to analysing the genesis of the violation of the rights determined by the ECtHR's reached in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Serbia that will be the research basis of this thesis, a special focus will be put on revealing all obstacles and causes of shortcomings in the process of the enforcement of the ECtHR's judgements by the respective national authorities of these countries.

1.1 Purpose

The overall purpose of this thesis is to investigate and analyse the current processes of enforcement of the ECtHR's judgements in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia, the main challenges that occurred before the national authorities in this process and the prospect of the efficiency of the measures that these countries undertake in order to fulfil the obligations imposed by the judgements.

The following questions will form the basis for discussion:

1) What are the current challenges for the national authorities in the enforcement of the ECtHR's judgements reached in the cases most affecting the legal framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia?
2) What are the responses of national authorities of the respective countries to obligations arising from the ECtHR's judgments in the cases concerned and possible challenges arising from their enforcement?
3) What are the eventual prospects of measures taken by the national authorities of respective countries in the enforcement of the ECtHR's judgements reached in the elaborated cases?

The first question refers to the ECtHR's judgements rendered in the cases that affect the legislature of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Serbia the most and reveal all the obstacles in their enforcement that these countries have been facing for some time. The second question addresses the particular measures taken by the national authorities of these countries in order to overcome the obstacles occurred in the process of enforcement of the judgements with the final aim of fulfilling the requirements imposed by those judgments. The third and the final question strives to form a discussion on the eventual effectiveness of the measures conducted by Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and their expected results regarding the fulfilment of the obligation deriving from certain ECtHR's judgements.

1.2 Method and Material

The thesis consists of two main parts. The first part covers the obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia to respect the right to a trial within a reasonable time as an integral part of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR, the provisions of which constitute the main protection of the citizens of every member state to the ECHR from arbitrary actions made by the government. This part corresponds to the second chapter of this thesis and analyses the structure of the problem deriving from the judgments reached against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia both, in a quantitative and qualitative manner, also revealing the same size of the scope of the challenges that affect both national legal systems. This part also provides an explanation of the genesis of the violation of Article 6 of the ECHR in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia, the complexity of the problem that occurred for the national authorities in the process of enforcement of the ECtHR's judgments, at the same time, analysing and questioning the relevance of the specific measures conducted by the national authorities on the path of meeting the requirements imposed by the judgments. By implementing this three-way oriented methodological approach, the state of the judiciary in respect of both counties can be assessed, also indirectly indicating the level of the current readiness of both countries to respond to the requirements of joining the EU.

Since the first part of this thesis addresses the structural problems deriving from the implementation of requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR within the legal systems of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia respectively, the second part of this thesis continues to deal with the complex problems that both countries have been facing for a long time, originated in the non-implementation of obligations of different articles of the ECHR. The complex problems affecting the legal systems of both countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, presented in the second part of this thesis arise from the judgements currently placed under the enhanced procedure of CM, which also means that these structural problems have not been solved within the expected time period as it had been defined by a particular ECtHR's judgement and concluded by the CM.¹¹ The second part corresponds to the third chapter, covering all the judgments reached against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia respectively currently placed under the enhanced procedure of CM, except the judgment in the case of Ališić and Others versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which concerns the failure by the governments, as successor states of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), to repay "old" foreign currency savings.¹² In this particular judgment, the ECtHR found that, unlike Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia was responsible for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR (Protection of Property).¹³ The argument that excludes this judgment from the list of judgments placed under the enhanced procedure forming the research basis for the second part of this thesis is that, in accordance with the last exam of the CM conduced at the meeting held between 6 – 7 June 2017, it derives that the Serbian authorities have established a firm mechanism embodied in an adopted law which will secure the implementation of general measures imposed by the judgment in question.¹⁴ The only issue related to the execution of general measures from the judgment which causes that it is still placed under the enhanced procedure of the CM is that the efficiency of functioning of the mechanism enshrined in the adopted law needs to stay under a close scrutiny of the CM for the purpose of its elaboration in the future.¹⁵

The analysis contained in the introductory part of the second chapter is based on a research matrix covering all the judgments and decisions reached against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia in the domain of the violation of the right to a fair trial, showing the size, roots and relevance of the shortcomings existing within the both countries' judiciaries. Furthermore, the most relevant cases in respect of both countries will be presented explaining the background and genesis of the violation of this right in both countries. Based on that, the second part of the second chapter discusses measures the countries have conducted so far with the aim of enforcement of the ECtHR's judgments, simultaneously investigating their efficiency and questioning their relevance.

As the first part of the thesis deals solely with the violation of the right to fair trial and the obligations imposed by the ECtHR’s judgments in that regard, the second part of the thesis will exclusively analyse the complex issues deriving from each judgment reached against both countries currently placed under the enhanced procedure of the CM. The second part of this thesis will analyse the measures taken by the national authorities in order to implement the judgements and explore their real efficiency and relevance.

2. The Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time as the Perspective for the Improvement of the Judiciaries in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia

The Right to a Fair Trial enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR and its most important composing pillar defined as the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time affects deeply national judiciaries in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia for more than ten years, simultaneously revealing all the shortcomings in their functioning. This is especially visible in two substantial elements, a demand for efficient judiciary capable to conduct the proceedings with a reasonable time and its obligation to enforce its own final decisions in a timely manner. This also makes the judiciary of every democratic country an independent and impartial branch within a three-part division of power.

Affected by demands arising from the rendered ECtHR's judgements, Bosnia and Herzegovina's and Serbia's transitional judicial systems are faced with the challenge of reconstructing the legislative framework that regulates the functioning of their judiciaries.

Although Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, both, to a greater or lesser extent, are putting efforts to reconcile the need for securing the existence of an efficient and independent judiciary and various interests of the ruling political elites, it is currently difficult to assess when these countries will be ready to make a more significant step towards the full enforcement of the obligation to respect the rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

2.1 The Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time as Defined by the ECHR

The excessive length of judicial proceedings before domestic courts of any country that is a high contracting party to the ECHR constitutes a violation of human rights determined as such by the ECtHR's case-law. As an old saying reads ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, summarizing all the damage that a party in a judicial proceeding suffers caused by the uncertainty of the outcome of the proceeding itself.

The listed violations of human rights derive from the right of a person, the party in judicial proceedings, to have a trial within a reasonable time prescribed by the first sentence of Article 6(1) (Right to a fair trial) of the ECHR which reads as follows: ̏ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time […] (ECHR, 1950, p. 9) . The concept of reasonable time cannot be arbitrarily applied when estimating the length of judicial proceedings before the national courts, but the ECtHR through the interpretation of the ECHR has established the guiding principles by which application to any particular case, regardless of whether it is a civil, including administrative proceedings, or criminal one, defines a time period within which a possible violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time can be determined.

The guiding principles-criteria through which application the ECtHR estimates whether or not the length of a proceeding has been reasonable are: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute.¹⁶

As regards to the first criterion considering the complexity of the case, it implies three sub-criterions. The first sub-criterion determining the complexity of the case is embodied in the complexity of the facts and may arise out of a large number of defendants, the seriousness of the charges¹⁷, the need to obtain evidence from several experts¹⁸, the consolidation in dispute concerned many people, a difficult question of the proof¹⁹ etc. The second sub-criterion that may affect the complexity of the case is the complexity of the legal issue and it may stem from the respect for the principle of equality of arms²⁰, the need for providing the official interpretation of an international treaty²¹, the level of complexity of the constitutional question raised during the proceedings²² etc. The third sub-criterion of the principle of the complexity of the case is the complexity of the proceedings and it may result from the large number of the parties involved in the proceedings²³, the processing a considerable amount of evidence²⁴ or complex case-files²⁵ etc.

The second criterion that the ECtHR uses to estimate whether the length of a proceeding has been reasonable is the conduct of the parties during a proceeding and it also incorporates four sub-criterions. The first sub-criterion is the applicant's behaviour constituting an objective fact and it is, for example, the frequent changing of lawyers representing the applicants in the proceedings²⁶, the failure of the applicant to appear at hearings²⁷, delay in replying to an offer of friendly settlement²⁸ etc. The second sub-criterion determining the cause of the delay in a proceeding is the parties’ behaviour that cannot be attributed to the respondent state and it mainly manifests in the required due diligence on the side of the party, meaning that although sometimes the blame cannot be attributed to the party, he or she still can be considered as responsible to a certain degree for the prolongation of the proceeding.²⁹ The application of this particular sub-criterion also implies that the behaviour of the parties does not release the court from ensuring the speedy trial as stipulated by Article 6 of the ECHR.³⁰ The third sub-criterion that can be used to determine the cause affecting the excessive length of a proceeding is the role that the relevant state authorities play in the proceeding. This important role of the relevant state authorities is especially visible in circumstances such as when an administrative authority causes a delay in reopening proceedings³¹ or the unusual length of investigation or when delay is caused by the judge in charge for the preparations for the speedy conduct of the trial³². The fourth sub-criterion affecting the delay in a proceeding is operationalised in the role that the government and legislature bodies may directly or indirectly play in creating the circumstances important for the delay itself. For example, the respondent parties pleaded before the ECtHR numerous problems faced by their courts such as unusual social and political climate highly affecting the work of the court³³ or issues that arise from the return of democracy in a country³⁴, but the leading observation point of the ECHR is that the state is responsible for all its authorities, not only for its judicial bodies.³⁵

The third criterion that the ECtHR uses to assess whether or not the excessive length of a proceeding occurred is related to the nature of the case and it is defined as what is at stake in the proceedings for the applicant. This criterion is of importance in terms of compensation the applicant can expect in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.³⁶ The ECtHR makes a very important distinction between the two groups of cases. The first group of cases is formed in view of possible consequences of the eventual excessive length of a proceeding for the applicant and it, simultaneously, creates the first sub-criterion. The cases that fall into this group are those demanding special diligence of the authorities³⁷ and they concern the cases affecting enjoyment of the right to respect for family life³⁸, the victims of criminal violence as regards the prosecution³⁹, the employment disputes⁴⁰ and other similar cases which speed processing can be of a great importance for the life of the applicant. The second sub-criterion arises from the second group of cases requiring exceptional diligence in speeding up the prescribed procedure when the irreversible and serious consequences treat to happen to the applicant(s) in terms of the eventual excessive length of a proceeding.⁴¹ Those cases mainly concern the restrictions between the parents and a child⁴² or the applicants with reduced life expectancy suffering from incurable diseases⁴³.

Although at a first glance the presented guiding principles are set up very broadly by the ECtHR's case-law, they still provide a firm legal ground for the national courts to act with sufficient predictability to avoid any possible violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. These principles also demonstrate the ECtHR's intention to leave enough manoeuvring space for itself, just enough to be equipped with necessary competences when assessing the factual state of a case.

Furthermore, the ECtHR throughout its case-law established a strong link between the violation of Article 6 and Article 13. More precisely, the ECtHR always holds that there has also been a violation of Article 13,⁴⁴ when the ECtHR establishes a violation of Article 6 in a particular case where the absence of the legal remedy which could be used by the applicant to enforce his right to a trial within a reasonable or to be redressed for its violation is also determined.⁴⁵ This particularly means that despite the fact that a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time has been determined by the ECtHR, there is still an obligation for the responsible state to provide the applicant with an effective legal remedy in order to enforce the listed right, whereby a great burden is put on a violating state to remove possible deficiencies of its judicial system that are, as the case-law revealed, always systematic and complex.

Article 6 also protects the right of an applicant until the very end of the proceeding before the national court, including the enforcement of a judgment in domestic proceedings. This means that the execution of a judgement in the national systems presents an integral part of the trial which provides a clear reasoning of the scope of protection provided by Article 6 of the ECHR. Consequently, another violation of the ECHR that is often closely connected to the breach of the right to a fair trial is the violation of the right protected under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (Protection of Property) that derives from its first paragraph which provides every natural or legal entity to be entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law (ECHR, 1950, p.31.) . One of the cases where the clear connection between the non-execution of the payment rendered by the domestic judgements in favour of the applicants and the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions was established in the case of Vasilopoulou v Greece, which clearly defined the mentioned payment obligation stipulated by the judgement as the private property of the applicant.⁴⁶

The elaborated legal framework of Article 6 that defines the scope of protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and its inseparable part, the right to peaceful enjoyment of possession protected by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR guaranteeing the prompt execution of judgements rendered in the proceedings before the national courts, provides the necessary understanding of the ECHR's requirements regarding the listed rights. In addition, this also presents the much-needed basis for a clearer understanding of the challenges that Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are currently facing with regards to the implementation of their obligations posed by the ECtHR's judgements when it comes to the rights to a trial within reasonable time, which will be further elaborated in the following chapters.

2.2 The Genesis of the Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time and the Current Challenges of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Judicial System

The size and complexity of the challenges currently faced by Bosnia and Herzegovina's respective authorities regarding the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time can best be perceived through the large number of the final judgements and decisions rendered against the state, also currently subjected to the ongoing supervision process of the CM. The CM acts as the final ECHR's authority entrusted with the power to supervise the execution of the ECtHR judgements and to declare their final execution when deciding a state complies with the obligations arising from a judgement.⁴⁷

More precisely, the total number of the ECtHR's final judgements and decisions related to the right to a trial within a reasonable time pending before the CM in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina is 14 of which five are leading cases. Only in the group of two cases: Kunić and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina⁴⁸ (the judgement considered 16 applications) and Spahić and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina⁴⁹ (the judgement considered 16 applications) concerning the non-execution by the Zenica-Doboj Canton and the Central Bosnian Canton governments of domestic judgements ordering the payment of unpaid work related benefits, the ECtHR has indicated that 400 similar applications are pending before it.⁵⁰ In addition, in six cases, friendly settlements were reached, confirming the existence of a strong legal basis demonstrating the responsibility of the state for the violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.⁵¹ The other six judgements concern the failure of domestic authorities to fully enforce the domestic court decisions ordering payment of war damages or to conduct civil proceedings before domestic courts within a reasonable time.⁵²

The origins of the violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in the judicial systems of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be found in many spheres of state organisation and they are mainly generated in the various types of pressure and political influence on judges and prosecutors and the disorganized legal system.⁵³ Political entities or the state entities do not provide through the legislative initiatives sufficient support to the respective state judiciaries in order to be able to meet the obligations from the ECHR.

Moreover, the 2017 Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Report showed the highest percentage of the citizen's complaints submitted before this institution concerned the issues of the excessive length of proceedings before national courts and inefficiency in enforcement of court decisions.⁵⁴ Since Bosnia and Herzegovina is a complex and highly decentralized country, its judicial system faces one obstacle more than Serbia. Namely, Bosnia and Herzegovina's judicial system is basically composed of four highly independent judicial systems that function in accordance with the laws exclusively applicable to each individual judicial system.

Graph:Organisation of the Court System in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten⁵⁵

More precisely, the three of the mentioned four judicial frameworks are incorporated into the highly autonomous administrative units composing Bosnia and Herzegovina, named the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the fourth independent judicial system is assigned to the state level judicial competence. In addition, the acting of the four independent judicial frameworks is highly defined by the executive judicial authorities, the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ministry of Justice of the Republika Srpska, the Brčko District Judicial Commission, and the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including 10 cantonal ministries of justice which are also entrusted with special authorities.⁵⁶

All four judicial systems in most cases enforce laws exclusively adopted by the legislature of the administrative unites in which they operate and this obstacle slows down Bosnia and Herzegovina in providing a comprehensive and structured approach to solving the problems deriving from the above-mentioned violation of Article 6 of the ECHR. The best example proving the previously explained lack of the state capacity to comprehensively and structurally respond to its international obligations is the latest example of not implementation of the State Strategy for Justice Sector Reform for the period 2014 – 2018.⁵⁷ The main goal of the Strategy is the improvement of transparency and efficiency of the judicial system and better application of international standards in the justice sector. Although the Strategy itself was produced as a joint action of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ministry of Justice of the Republika Srpska, the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko District Judicial Commission, it has so far remained largely unimplemented. The main cause for non-implementation of the Strategy is that the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy itself specifying all the planned activities of the relevant authorities throughout the country, was adopted by the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 17 March 2017 (the state government), causing more than 3 years of time delay in the planned implementation of the Strategy.⁵⁸ The explained time disparity between these two documents leaves less than two years for the implementation of some activities that can be implemented in such a short time frame. All this leads to the conclusion that Bosnia and Herzegovina will prolong the time scheduled for the implementation of the Strategy for the next four or five years, not excluding the possibilities for the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina to adopt a revised version of the Strategy with minor amendments. Beside the fact that the complex constitutional structure burdens the possible effectivities of the state authorities, the relevant government authorities are also indifferent towards the complex problems currently affecting the state judiciary.

2.3 The Genesis of the Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time and the Current Challenges of Serbia's Judicial System

Following the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it seems that Serbia could be even more affected by the number of the ECtHR's judgements that are currently placed under the supervision of the CM, indirectly indicating the seriousness of the challenges posed before the Serbian authorities by the enforcement of Article 6 of the ECHR. Namely, the total number of the ECtHR's judgements rendered against Serbia is 33 plus one decision where a friendly settlement was reached.⁵⁹ In addition, 13 cases are placed under the enhanced supervision of the CM, revealing the existence of a complex problem within the Serbian judicial system.⁶⁰ According to the CM examination meeting held on 6 and 7 June 2017, the relevant domestic court decisions in the cases of Kostic v Serbia and Smigic v Serbia have not been enforced yet.⁶¹ At the listed meeting of the CM, it was concluded that the measures addressing the root of the problem of non-enforcement of final decisions reached against socially-owned companies and municipal authorities have not been taken yet, especially with regards to the fact that the cases concerning this problem have been pending before the CM for nearly ten years.⁶²

The violations of Article 6 of the ECHR are the consequences of the inability of the Serbian authorities to secure the enforcement of final domestic court decisions concerning debts of socially-owned companies, municipalities and of final administrative decisions concerning pensions as well as demolition orders with regards to unauthorised construction. In addition, the violation of Article 6 is also a consequence of the failure of the Serbian authorities to conduct the civil proceedings within a reasonable time in particular in commercial, civil and labour proceedings.

Similar to the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the origins of the violations of the right to a trial within the reasonable time in Serbia arise from the current constitutional and legal framework which, among other things, still leaves enough space for undue political influence over the judiciary.⁶³ There has also been no significant progress in establishing a transparent, objective, and merit-based system for the appointment of judges and prosecutors.⁶⁴ Beside the fact that the overall age of backlog cases currently pending before basic courts are 10 years or more, significant differences in workload across the country continue to burden the judicial system.⁶⁵ The lengthy proceedings in processing the indemnity claims still deeply affect the quality of justice.⁶⁶ In addition, in 2016 during the on-site visit the CoE's representatives with the relevant stakeholder within the Serbian judiciary discussed the complex issue of excessive length of judicial proceeding and its causes.⁶⁷ The main findings of the on-site visit are that the complex issue of excessive length of judicial proceeding is the consequence of the ongoing process of political changes, transitional economic measures, legislative and judicial reforms with inadequate final solutions.⁶⁸ In addition, the constant reallocations between courts, insufficient number of judges, continuous growth of cases before national courts, inaction by judicial authorities, deficiencies in rules of procedures, long periods in between hearings and inadequate rules regulating the enforcement procedures are also recognised during the on-site visit as the difficulties causing excessive length of judicial proceeding.⁶⁹

[...]

---

¹ Serbia is currently in the process of 'transposing' (or integrating) the EU legislation into national law, which means that it is a candidate country for EU accession; Bosnia and Herzegovina currently enjoys the status of a potential candidate country for EU membership meaning that it was promised to access the EU when it is ready – this is explained on the following websites of the European Union and the European Commission (https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en) (Accessed on 16 October 2018) (https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/countries/check-current-status_en#pc) (Accessed on 16 October 2018).

² The Charter in its preamble, among other international human rights treaties common to the EU member states, reaffirms the ECHR and the case-law of the ECtHR Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (26.10.2012, Official Journal of the European Union, C326\391) (Charter); Ferraro and Carmona (2015) list all articles of the Charter and the ECHR that mutually corresponds.

³ Yugoslavia lasted within the time frame 1945-1991. Yugoslavia was recognised in March 1945 under the name Democratic Federative Yugoslavia (Bilandžić, 1985:78).; According to the Badinter Arbitration Committee's Opinion No. 1 the process of dissolution of Yugoslavia began in 1991 (http://ejil.org/pdfs/3/1/1175.pdf) (Accessed on 15 May 2018).; After Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was dissolved, Serbia formed another two federal states. The first one was formed on 27 April 1992 and it was called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisting of two former Yugoslav republics named Republic of Serbia and Republic of Montenegro. On 4 February 2003 Serbia and Montenegro adopted a new constitutional charter defining the federation of these two republics as The State Community of Serbia and Montenegro lasted until 3 June 2006 when the Assembly of Montenegro, based on the results of an independency referendum conducted in Montenegro adopted an independency declaration by which Montenegro became an independent country. Serbia maintained its legal continuity (http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/1091472/godisnjica-proglasenja-sr-jugoslavije.html) (Accessed on 15 May 2018).

⁴ Robert Thomas (1999).

⁵ The time frame explaining the duration of the conflict in Bosna and Herzegovina and in Croatia is presented on the official website of the United Nations Crime Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (http://www.icty.org/en/about/what-former-yugoslavia/conflicts)(Accessed on 17 October 2018); The elaboration of the Serbian judiciary development is explained in a paper published by the American Bar organisation titled Serbia Background. (https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/roli/serbia/serbia-legal-system-eng.pdf) (Accessed on October 17 2018).

⁶ By using powers assigned by Article V of Annex 10 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, especially, by the "Bonn powers" to the Office of the High Representative, the High Representative enacted several laws regulating the Judicial and Prosecutorial system of Bosnia and Herzegovina such as: Law Establishing the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the BIH Criminal Law, the BiH Criminal Procedure Law, various amendments to the entities' constitution etc. The High Representative also established an Independent Judicial Commission in March 2001, with the task of leading and coordinating the continued reform of the BiH judiciary. The General Framework Agreement for Peace (initialled in Dayton on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris on 14 December 1995); PIC Bonn Conclusions-The Peace Implementation Meeting, held on 9 and 10 December 1997 in Bonn; A Decade of High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

⁷ Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina was prescribed by Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace, which was initialled in Dayton on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris on 14 December 199. In accordance with Article 3.a of the Constitution, the judicial authorities are assigned to the competences of the entities. Article VI of the Constitution defines the Constitutional Court and its competences. The General Framework Agreement for Peace (initialled in Dayton on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris on 14 December 1995); Article 66 of Statute of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 3/7); Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, High Representative Decision on Law Establishing the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. 50/00 (Official Gazette of BiH, Number 29/00). Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace.

⁸ H. Daalder (2000) (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/hes-gone-the-end-of-the-milosevic-era/) (Accessed on 21 October 2018); Bosnia and Herzegovina became a member state of the Council of Europe on 24 April 2002. (https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/bosnia-and-herzegovina) (Accessed on 15 May 2018) ; Serbia became a member state of the Council of Europe on 3 April 2003 (https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/serbia) (Accessed on 15 May 2018).

⁹ Council of Europe- Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 005 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/005/signatures?p_auth=t7KYca2m) (Accessed on 10 May 2018).

¹⁰ The list of "Economies in Transition" (UN, 2018:141).

¹¹ The list of the cases placed under enhanced procedure in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina – the webpage of the Council of Europe accessed on 6 June 2018 (https://rm.coe.int/1680709741) (Accessed on 6 June 2018). The list of the cases placed under enhanced procedure in respect of Serbia – the webpage of the Council of Europe (https://rm.coe.int/1680709761)

¹² Ališić and Others versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia App. no. 60642/08 (ECtHR, 16 July 2004)

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Exam of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe, 1288th meeting (6-7 June 2017) – Notes.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Frydlender v. France [GC], 27 June 2000, §43.

¹⁷ Arap Yalgin and others v. Turkey, 25 Sept. 2001, §27

¹⁸ Ilowiecki v. Poland, 4 Oct. 2001, §87

¹⁹ Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 Feb. 1995, §§49

²⁰ Baraona v. Portugal, 8 July 1987, §50

²¹ Beaumartin v. France, 24 Jan. 1994, §33.

²² Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, §41.

²³ H v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, §72.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, §21.

²⁶ König v. the Federal Republic of Germany (merits), 28 June 1978, §§103 and 108.

²⁷ Gana v. Italy, 27 Feb. 1992, §17, §16, §18 and §18 respectively.

²⁸ Buchholz v. the Federal Republic of Germany, 6 May 1981, §57.

²⁹ Pretto and others v. Italy, 8 Dec. 1983, §34.

³⁰ Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, §32.

³¹ Poiss v. Austria (merits), 23 Apr. 1987, §59.

³² Cooperativa Parco Cuma v. Italy, 27 Feb. 1992, §17, §18 and §18 respectively.

³³ Foti and others v. Italy (merits), 10 Dec. 1982, §§10 and 61.

³⁴ Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, 7 July 1989, §§37-41.

³⁵ Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, 23 Oct. 1990, §73.

³⁶ Vallée v. France, 26 Apr. 1994, §49; Karakaya v. France, 26 Aug. 1994, §45.

³⁷ Laino v. Italy, 18 Feb. 1999, §18.

³⁸ Bock v. the Federal Republic of Germany, 29 Mar. 1989, §§48-49.

³⁹ Caloc V. Franc, 20 July 2000, §§ 120.

⁴⁰ König v. the Federal Republic of Germany, 10 March 1980 §§ 111.

⁴¹ Paulsen-Medalen and Svensson v. Sweden, 19 Feb. 1998, §39.

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ X. v. France, 31 Mar. 1992, §§44 and 47.

⁴⁴ The relevant part of Article 13: that Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority […] (ECHR, 1950, p. 12)̋ .

⁴⁵ The ECtHR Grand Chamber's judgement in the case of Kudla versus Poland, App. No. 30210/96 (ECHR, 26 October 2000).

⁴⁶ Vasilopoulou versus Greece, App. no. 47541/99 (ECtHR, 2002:4).

⁴⁷ In accordance with Article 44 of the ECHR and Article 46 of Protocol No. 11 to the ECHR, the CM supervises the execution of the ECtHR's judgements.

⁴⁸ The ECtHR Grand Chamber's judgement in the case of Kunic and Others versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, Apps. Nos. 68955/12 and 15 others (ECtHR, 14 November 2017).

⁴⁹ The ECtHR Grand Chamber's judgement in the case of Spahic and Others versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, Apps. Nos. 20514/15 and 15 others (ECtHR, 14 November 2018).

⁵⁰ On the website HUDOC-EXEC data base of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of ECtHR the judgements rendered against Bosnia and Herzegovina that are currently placed under the procedure of supervision of the CoE are presented (https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECState%22:[%22BIH%22],%22EXECIdentifier%22:[%22004-49047%22]}) (Accessed on 29 May 2018).

⁵¹ The six cases where friendly settlements have been reached are Pranjic Lukic v. Bosni and Herzegovina, App. No 65062/11 (ECtHR, 17 November 2015); Rajic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 14430/14 (ECtHR, 5 September 2017); Talovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 29849/16 (ECtHR, 16 January 2018); Momic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 28730/16 (ECtHR, 17 May 2011); Gavric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 54644/11 (ECtHR, 8 October 2013); Subosic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 71858/11 (ECtHR, 17 December 2017) (HUDOC-EXEC data base of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of ECtHR – https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}) (Accessed on 17 May 2018).

⁵² The six judgements where the failure of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to fully enforce the domestic court decisions ordering payment of war damages or to conduct civil proceedings before domestic courts within a reasonable time was determined are Panorama LTD versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, Apps. Nos. 69997/10 and 74793/11 (ECtHR, 25 October 2017); Kahrima v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 4867/16 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Doric versus Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 68811/13 (ECtHR, 7 November 2017); Damjanovic and Euromag DOO v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 17248/11 (ECtHR, 31 October 2017); Prazina v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 32228/11 (ECtHR, 5 December 2017); and Mandic and Popovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 73944/13 and 78987/13 (ECtHR, 19 December 2017) (HUDOC-EXEC data base of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of ECtHR – https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}) (Accessed on 17 May 2018).

⁵³ Results of Examination of Public Opinion-carried out within Diagnostic Analysis of Integrity of the judicial sector and possible risks of emergency of corruption and unethical behaviour in the judiciary (USAID-Justice Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2015:16); Bosnia and Herzegovina 2018 Report. European Commission. Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary – p. 10.

⁵⁴ 2017 Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Annual Report (http://www.ombudsmen.gov.ba/documents/obmudsmen_doc2018030810344228eng.pdf) (Accessed on 15 June 2018).

⁵⁵ The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina was established by the Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was proclaimed by the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina's decision ("Official Gazette of BiH", No. 29/00). The Law on the Court, later, was adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Official Gazette of BiH", No. 16/00). It was established with the aim to provide judicial protection in those matters which, under the BiH Constitution, falls under state jurisdiction, such as: the fight against terrorism, war crimes, human trafficking and organized and economic crimes. Its competences are related to criminal, administrative and appellate jurisdictions. The Court of BIH has a criminal department, an administrative department and an appellate department.

⁵⁶ In accordance with Article 2 of Chapter I of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina one of the two entities composing Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of federal units - cantons (10 cantons)(Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1994).

⁵⁷ The State Strategy for Justice Reform for the period 2014-2015 (http://www.mpr.gov.ba/organizacija_nadleznosti/planiranja_koordinacija/strateska_planiranja/strategija/13%201%20SRSP%20u%20BiH%20-%20BJ.pdf) (Accessed on 18 July 2018).

⁵⁸ The Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina's news anouncing that the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Action Plan for the Implementation of the State Strategy for Justice Reform for the period 2014 – 2018. (http://www.mpr.gov.ba/aktuelnosti/vijesti/default.aspx?id=5997&langTag=bs-BA) (Accessed on 18 July 2018).

⁵⁹ The thirty three judgements where the failure of the authorities of Serbia to meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention are: Rafailovic v. Serbia, Apps. Nos. 38629/07 and 23718/08 (ECtHR, 16 June 2015); Samardzic and AD Plastika v. Serbia, App. No. 28443/05 (ECtHR, 17 October 2007), Mikuljanac, Malisic and Safar v. Serbia, App. No. 41513/05 (ECtHR, 9 October 2007); Doric v. Serbia, App. No. 33029/05 (ECtHR, 27 January 2009); Stokic v. Serbia, App. No. 26308/15 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Vilotijevic v. Serbia, App. No. 26042/06 (ECtHR, 10 December 2013); R. Kacapor v. Serbia, App. No. 2269/06 (ECtHR, 15 January 2008); Batic v. Serbia, App. No. 2866/16 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Bilic v. Serbia, App. No. 24923/15 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Jankovic v. Serbia, App. No. 21518/09 (ECtHR, 18 November 2014); Jankovic v. Serbia, App. No. 23915/15 (ECtHR, 16 May 2017); Klikovac v. Serbia, App. No. 24291/08 (ECtHR, 5 March 2013); Krndija v. Serbia, App. No. 30723/09 (ECtHR, 27 June 2017); Radulovic v. Serbia, App. No. 24465/11 (ECtHR, 3 October 2017); Popovic v. Serbia, App. No. 38350/04 (ECtHR, 20 February 2007); Borovic and Others v. Serbia, App. No. 58559/12 (ECtHR, 11 April 2017); Hrustovic and Others v. Serbia, App. No. 8647/16 (ECtHR, 9 January 2018); Joksimovic v. Serbia, App. No. 37929/10 (ECtHR, 7 November 2017); Kovic v. Serbia, App. No. 39611/08 (ECtHR, 4 April 2017); Markovic v. Serbia, App. No. 70661/14 (ECtHR, 28 March 2017); Milovanovic v. Serbia, App. No. 19222/16 (ECtHR, 19 December 2017); Jevremovic v. Serbia, App. No. 3150/05 (ECtHR, 17 July 2007); Jovanovic v. Serbia, App. No. 29763/07 (ECtHR, 28 March 2017); M.V. v. Serbia, App. No. 45251/07 (ECtHR, 22 December 2009); Nemet v. Serbia, App. No. 22543/05 (ECtHR, 8 December 2009); Sacirovic and Others v. Serbia, App. No. 54001/15 (ECtHR, 20 February 2018); Stokic v. Serbia, App. No. 26308/15 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Veljkov v. Serbia, App. No. 23087/07 (ECtHR, 19 April 2011); Kin-Stib and Majkic v. Serbia, App. No. 12312/05 (ECtHR, 4 September 2010); Maksovic v. Serbia, App. No. 54770/15 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Krgovic v. Serbia, App. No. 29430/06 (ECtHR, 13 September 2016); Smigic v. Serbia, App. No. 41501/08 (ECtHR, 11 October 2016); Kostic v. Serbia, App. No. 41760/04 (ECtHR, 25 February 2009) plus one decision in the case of Mitric v. Serbia, App. No. 13851/08 (ECtHR, 17 March 2015) where a friendly settlement has been reached. The judgements and decision are presented on the website HUDOC-EXEC data base of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of ECtHR (https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}) (accessed on 29 May 2018).

⁶⁰ The thirteen cases that are currently placed under the enhanced supervision are: Rafailovic v. Serbia, App. No. 38629/07 (ECtHR, 16 September 2015); R. Kacapor v. Serbia, App. No. 2269/06 (ECtHR, 7 July 2008); Batic v. Serbia, App. No. 2866/16 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Bilic v. Serbia, App. No. 24923/15 (ECtHR, 17 October 2017); Jankovic v. Serbia, App. No. 21518/09 (ECtHR, 18 November 2018); Jankovic v. Serbia, App. No. 23915/15 (ECtHR, 16 May 2017); Klikovac v. Serbia, App. No. 24291/08 (ECtHR, 5 March 2013); Krndija v. Serbia, App. No. 30723/09 (ECtHR, 27 September 2017); Radulovic v. Serbia, App. No. 24465/11 (ECtHR, 3 October 2017); Kin-Stib and Majkic v. Serbia, App. No. 12312/05 (ECtHR, 4 Ocotber 2010); Maksovic v. Serbia, App. No. 54770/15 (ECtHR, 17 Ocotber 2017); Smigic v. Serbia, App. No. 41501/08 (ECtHR, 11 October 2016) and Kostic v. Serbia, App. No. 41760/04 (25 February 2009).

⁶¹ Committee of Ministers Meeting held on 6-7 June 2017(1288th CM-DH meeting Notes/Issues).

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Serbia 2018 Report. European Commission. 2018. Independency and Impartiality of the Judiciary – page 14.

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ Serbia 2018 Report. European Commission. Efficiency of the Judiciary – page 17.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ The main findings of an on-site visit of the representatives of the Council of Europe to Serbia are presented were presented in the handbook titled Application of Reasonable Time Standard in Serbia (Filatova, Kovler, Maan, Vajic, & Pavlin, 2014:24).

⁶⁸ Ibid.

⁶⁹ Ibid.