On 19 December 2024, the Constitutional Court held the 152nd plenary session online at which it adopted a considerable number of decisions in which the appeals were rejected as inadmissible on the grounds set forth in Article 18 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.

Of these decisions, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:

AP-3357/23 (M. S.) - In the proceedings in which the contested judgment of the Appellate Court of the Brčko District of BiH was rendered, the appellant’s motion for renewal of the proceedings completed by the decision of the Judicial Commission of the Brčko District of BiH was rejected. It was reasoned that the issue of protection of rights when selecting and appointing the most successful candidate in the procedure of employment in the judiciary is regulated by the Law on Civil Servants and Employees in the Judiciary as lex specialis. In view of the foregoing, the Appellate Court concluded that the Law on Administrative Procedure did not apply on that issue, thereby also not the rules of that law about the extraordinary legal remedies. Hence, this made the appellant’s motion for renewed proceedings inadmissible. The claims of a violation of the right to a fair trial concerned the decision rendered in the proceedings on the motion for renewal of the proceedings completed with final and binding decision, which does not amount to the proceedings determining “civil rights or obligations”. It was not the merits of the complaint that were deliberated on, but only the existence of the conditions to approve renewed proceedings. Thus, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH.

AP-4426/21 (D. P.) - The appellant contested the final decision of the ordinary court rendered in the criminal proceedings against a third party in which the appellant was an injured party. Under the contested decision the appellant was instructed to take a civil action to pursue his claim under property law. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH. The protection in criminal proceedings in terms of the right to a fair trial is enjoyed only by a person against whom criminal proceedings are conducted or against whom the merits of the criminal charge are being determined. The appellant’s claims of a violation of the right to property are equally ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH as the appellant, as an injured party, was instructed to take a civil action to pursue his claim under property law and seek protection of his property rights.

AP-3922/22 (Court of BiH) - The appeal lodged by the Court of BiH against the judgment of the Court of BiH was rejected as inadmissible for being ratione personae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH. In the reasons of the decision, the Constitutional Court observes that the appellant, as the holder of the judicial authority that rendered the challenged judgment, cannot claim that it is a victim of violation of constitutional rights (the right to a fair trial and the right to property). The appellant cannot claim that he is “affected” in its legal position, which is the condition for the ratione personae admissibility of an appeal before the Constitutional Court of BiH.

AP-1522/23 (M. S.) and AP-2124/23 (S. K. and S. T.) – The appeals are rejected as inadmissible because they were lodged by unauthorized persons. In the cases at hand, the appellants were not the parties to the proceedings before ordinary courts, but the parties were the persons whom the appellants claimed were their legal predecessors. The Constitutional Court points out in the reasons that in such cases, when the predecessor passed away before or after the appeal was filed, the appellants – heirs are required to submit certificate of inheritance. This would demonstrate that they have inherited from the party to the proceedings, which they claim is their legal predecessor. However, given the fact that in the cases at hand the appellants did not prove their “hereditary interest”, the Constitutional Court determined that the appellants were not persons authorized to lodge appeals.

AP-3/24 (Addiko Bank a.d. Banja Luka) - By its ruling of 15 May 2023, upheld by the ruling of the County Court of 20 October 2023, the Basic Court in Kozarska Dubica rejected the appellant’s motion to change the method and object of enforcement by ordering enforcement on the travel document of the person subject to enforcement (M. P.) and prohibiting the use of identity card for crossing the State border. In the reasons of the challenged ruling, the County Court points out that Article 6 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure stipulates the methods and objects of enforcement. It also points out that not a single provision of the Law on Enforcement Procedure stipulates seizure of travel document as an independent means of forced execution, that is, an independent object of enforcement. It points out that, therefore, the first instance court acted properly when it rejected the appellant’s proposal. The appellant claims that the referenced conduct of the ordinary courts was in violation of the right to a fair trial. Mindful of the foregoing and of its case law so far, in a situation when the appellant challenged the decisions by which the ordinary courts decided on procedural issues only or the procedural admissibility of the motion to change the method and object of enforcement, but not on the appellant’s “civil rights or obligations”, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal. It rejected the appeal for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution.

All decisions adopted at the plenary session will be published on the website of the Constitutional Court of BiH and delivered to the appellants within one m