Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its 134th  and 135th  plenary sessions.

Of the decision adopted at the plenary sessions, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:

U 27/22 –  Deciding on the requests filed by Messrs. Željko Komšić, Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Šefik Džaferović, Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the time of filing the request, for review of the constitutionality of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of FBiH, 79/22 and 80/22) and the Law on Amendments to the Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 67/22), the Constitutional Court established that the Amendments to the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Law on Amendments to the Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina are compatible with Articles I(2), II(2), II(4) and III(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention, Articles 5 and 7 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This decision shall be published after the Judges who announced their separate opinions submit them, pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of BiH, within 15 days at the latest.

U 22/22 – In deciding the request of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the review of constitutionality of the Law on Salaries and Other Compensations in Judicial and Prosecutorial Institutions at the Level of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 90/05, 32/07, 17/13, 5/14, 40/14, 48/15 and 77/20), the Constitutional Court established that the challenged Law is not in conformity with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina , the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the ground that it does not contain the provisions on the right to the costs for accommodation and separate living allowance for professional staff in judicial institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

U 29/22 –  Deciding on the request lodged by seven delegates of the Council of Peoples of the Republika Srpska for review of the constitutionality of Article 21 of the Law Amending the Law on Preschool Upbringing and Education (Official Gazette of the RS, 63/20), Article 140 of the Law on Primary Upbringing and Education (Official Gazette of the RS, 81/22) and Article 17 of the Law Amending the Law on Secondary Education and Upbringing (Official Gazette of the RS, 92/20), the Constitutional Court established that disputed articles of the  laws in the part that prescribe the St. Sava Award, are consistent with the principle of the constituent status of the peoples referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the right to prohibition of discrimination.

U 34/22 –  In deciding the request filed by the Court of Appeal of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for review of the constitutionality of the Law on Procedure of Assessment of Compatibility of Legal Acts of the Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of the Brčko District of BiH, 20/10), the Constitutional Court established that the lack of legal provisions on the delegation of jurisdiction in the Law on Procedure of Assessment of Compatibility of Legal Acts of the Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of the Brčko District of BiH, 20/10) is not in contravention of Article II (3) (e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 (1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

AP 1828/22 (A.H.) - The Constitutional Court concludes in this case that there is a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under Article II (3) (e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 (1) of the European Convention where in the proceedings for ordering provisional measures, which are specified in the law as urgent, the Supreme Court of the Federation of BiH, deciding on the appellant’s appeal against the first instance ruling, did not show the necessary promptness.

AP 3228/22 (Kenan Čustović) – The Constitutional Court concludes in this case that the appellant’s allegations about a violation of the right to liberty and security of person are well-founded, because the appellant, in a procedure of control of justification of the detention, following the confirmation of the Indictment, was not allowed to be heard “at reasonable intervals” in person before the panel of the Cantonal Court deciding his detention.

AP 4204/22 („Energoinvest TPO“ d.d. Jajce) - The Constitutional Court concludes that given the specific circumstances in the present case, there has been a violation of the right to property. This is so as the interference with the appellant's right to property, in the specific circumstances of the present case, although lawful and in pursuit of the legitimate aim, amounted to an excessive burden placed on the appellant that could not be justified by the legitimate aim pursued. In the specific case, the Municipal Court in Jajce has failed to consider whether the enforcement could be carried out by a different measure that would be more suitable and less burdensome.

All decisions adopted at today's plenary session will be delivered to the applicants/appellants within one month and published as soon as possible on the website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.