CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 février 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sE796CEF6 { width:21.54pt; display:inline-block } .s565265B { width:118.4pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44312/19 Usmir TUTUNDŽIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   February 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Iulia Antoanella Motoc , President ,   Faris Vehabović,   Branko Lubarda , judges , and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   44312/19) 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 1 August 2019 by a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Usmir Tutundžić, who was born in 1973 and lives in Sarajevo (“the applicant”); the decision to give notice of the application to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”), represented by their Acting Agent, Ms   M. Mijić; the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns a decision of the Constitutional Court of 13   February 2019 rejecting the applicant’s constitutional appeal because, at that time, it did not deal with the issue of the length of pending, as opposed to terminated, proceedings (see Delić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no.   59181/18, §§ 10-12, 2 March 2021). The Constitutional Court took into consideration the applicant’s initial submission of June 2017 only and disregarded his additional submission of August 2017 by which he informed that court that the impugned administrative proceedings had in the meantime been terminated and he complained about the length and outcome of those proceedings. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 2.     The applicant complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that he had been denied access to the Constitutional Court for his complaint about the length and outcome of the administrative proceedings at issue. This complaint falls to be examined, and was communicated to the Government, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, § 88, Series A no. 52, and Karakutsya v. Ukraine , no.   18986/06, §§ 38-39, 16 February 2017). 3.     Submitting examples of Constitutional Court decisions, one of which dated back to 2006, the Government pointed out that the applicant did not avail himself of the remedy available under Rule 68 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (review of decisions) against the aforementioned decision of 13   February 2019. 4.   The applicant disagreed. 5.   The general principles concerning the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies were summarised in   Vučković and Others v. Serbia   ((preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014). 6.     The Court notes that decisions of the Constitutional Court are, in principle, not subject to appeal. However, it observes that Rule 68 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, as interpreted by that court’s case-law, provides for a remedy in situations such as the one under consideration in the present case. If the Constitutional Court by mistake disregards a complaint before it, the appellant in question may request that court to remedy the mistake (see, for example, Constitutional Court decisions AP-1009/04 of 12   September 2006, AP-3013/17 of 24 April 2019, and AP-1793/20 of 10   December 2020). 7.     The applicant has neither used that remedy nor shown that it was for any reason inadequate or ineffective in the particular circumstances of his case.   The Court sees no special circumstances absolving the applicant from the   obligation to   use it (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Mirazović v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 13628/03, 16 May 2006). 8.     It follows that the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 23 March 2023.     Valentin Nicolescu   Iulia Antoanella Motoc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President