CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 March 2020 Published on 25 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27994/19 Sabahete MUQISHTA against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 17 May 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a Serbian national and has a refugee status in Bosnia and Herzegovina. She has been diagnosed with severe mental disability. In 2011 the applicant applied for a disability allowance and some other benefits. Her application has finally been dismissed on the ground of nationality, although the domestic law (see, notably, section 120 of the Aliens Act 2008; section   78 of the Asylum Act 2016; and the relevant secondary legislation) and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (see Article 24) provide that refugees are entitled to the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in respect of social security. The administrative proceedings in the present case lasted more than five years for one level of jurisdiction.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Were the decisions rendered in this case arbitrary and for that reason contrary to Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 60-65, ECHR 2015)? In this connection, the Government are requested to submit examples, if any, of decisions granting a disability allowance to a person with a refugee status in Bosnia and Herzegovina.   3.     Were the decisions rendered in this case contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?