FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1472/07
Ivica KAURIN
against Bosnia and Herzegovina
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
	David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
	Nebojša Vučinić,
	Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 May 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1.  The applicant, Mr Ivica Kaurin, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1958 and lives in Banja Luka. The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Mijić.
2.  The applicant complained under Articles 8, 13 and 17 of, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to, the Convention of the non-enforcement of the final judgment adopted in his favour against the Republika Srpska by the Banja Luka First Instance Court on 3 July 2000.
THE LAW
3.  On 30 August 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. Since the issues raised by this application were already subject of well-established case-law of the Court, the Government was referred to the leading case concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments ordering the Republika Srpska to pay war damages (see Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 1218/07 et al., 10 November 2009, in which the Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention). By a letter dated 25 May 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“I, Monika Mijić, the Agent, declare that the Government are ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention due to non-enforcement of the domestic judgement rendered in favour of the applicant and offer to pay ex gratia 900 euros to the applicant, Mr Ivica Kaurin.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into convertible marks at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The above sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I further declare that the domestic authorities offer to secure full enforcement of the domestic judgment under consideration in this case in cash within nine months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
4.  In a letter of 24 June 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he did not accept the Government’s declaration and wished the examination of his case to be continued.
5.  The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
6.  It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
7.  The Court has established in many cases, including those brought against Bosnia and Herzegovina, its practice concerning complaints of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions (see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, ECHR 2006‑XII; Karanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 39462/03, 20 November 2007; Milisavljević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 7435/04, 3 March 2009; and Čolić and Others, cited above).
8.  Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
9.  Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
	Fatoş Aracı	David Thór Björgvinsson
	Deputy Registrar	President