On 27 February 2025, the Constitutional Court held the 154th plenary session online at which it, inter alia, 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-746/21 (V.S.) – In this case the appellant, inter alia, contested the rulings adopted in the procedure of substituting a fine by imprisonment, as he considered that his right to a fair trial was violated in the procedure. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal with respect to this part as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In particular, the contested rulings addressed only the compliance with the statutory requirements for the substitution of a fine by imprisonment, that is, the “reasonableness of the criminal charge” against the appellant was not determined in that procedure. The reasonableness of “the criminal charge” against the appellant was determined in the previous misdemeanor proceedings which were completed with a final and enforceable decision of the Basic Court in Banjaluka under which the appellant’s misdemeanor responsibility was determined and a fine imposed on him.
AP-3211/21 (Admir Muminović) – The appellant in this case lodged an appeal because of the length of the proceedings for the issuance of a subsequent urban planning approval, conducted before an administrative authority. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies available under the law, as the appellant did not initiate an administrative dispute before the competent court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law on Administrative Disputes of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recalling its earlier case law, the Constitutional Court points out that the allegations of a violation of the right to trial “within a reasonable time” cannot be examined unless at least one stage of the proceedings included court proceedings that the party was required to initiate. Given that the appellant failed to use the available legal remedies and thereby create conditions for at least one stage of the proceedings to be examined before the competent courts, the Constitutional Court concludes that the appellant did not exhaust the effective legal remedies available under the law.
AP-457/22 (Jelena Savić) - In this case the appeal was lodged against the ordinary courts’ decisions in administrative dispute rejecting the appellant’s lawsuit against the second instance authority’s decision in the proceedings related to the conducted public competition. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH. The Constitutional Court recalls its earlier case law according to which the appellants’ civil rights are decided in the proceedings concerning public competitions, in which proceedings the right to a fair trial applies. However, in the pertinent administrative dispute in which the ordinary courts had rendered the contested decisions, the appellant challenged the second instance authority’s decision whereby a competition for the job of a kindergarten secretary was essentially cancelled. It stems from the foregoing that the appellant’s civil rights and obligations were not deliberated on in that decision since the public competition was cancelled.
AP-599/22 (TRASER Design Office, Joint stock company of mixed ownership with full liability, Sarajevo) - The appellant in this case complained that the contested decisions adopted in the procedure of accessing information were in violation of its right to a fair trial and right to freedom of expression. With respect to the right to a fair trial, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH. The Constitutional Court recalls its settled case law according to which the appellants’ “civil rights and obligations” are not determined in the proceedings concerning the access to information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act for BiH. With respect to the right to freedom of expression, the Constitutional Court also rejected the appeal as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH. The Constitutional Court points out that the appellant, which is a legal entity, requested to be submitted information from the Central Election Commission of BiH (a state body) which concerns a physical person. In particular, the appellant requested the information in which voters’ register the physical person was registered on a particular date, that is, whether the person was registered in the voters’ register with the residence at the specified address. The appellant requested the information for the purpose of conducting civil proceedings against the referenced physical person. The Constitutional Court points out that the appellant could have obtained the referenced information in civil proceedings in another way. In particular, the Constitutional Court took into account the criteria laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in its case law when determining whether there existed an interference with the right to freedom of expression, that is, the right of access to information as a part thereof, and established a correspondence between these criteria and the pertinent case. Consequently, the Constitutional Court determined that the information the appellant requested was not of key importance for the exercising of its right to freedom of expression and that the procedure of access to information in the pertinent case does not raise the issues and does not enjoy the protection of the appellant’s right to freedom of expression.
AP-619/22 (Goran Stupar, Tajana Radanović, Slavica Suknaić, Ivica Suknajić, Mile Suknajić, Dragica Suknjaić, Perica Suknjaić, Ivan Suknjaić and Tomislav Suknaić and A. D.) – In this case the appeals, which were, inter alia, lodged because of the length of the proceedings in cases before the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska, were rejected as inadmissible over the failure to exhaust legal remedies available under the law. In the reasons of the decision, the Constitutional Court recalls that the Law on the Protection of the Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time of the Republika Srpska constitutes an effective legal remedy that the appellants should use before lodging appeals with the Constitutional Court, which was not done in the present case.
AP-641/22 (S.A.) - The appellant in this case contested a decision of the Conditional Release Commission (the Commission) adopted with regard to his application for conditional release. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal because of the failure to exhaust legal remedies available under the law. In particular, it was not possible for the appellant to file an appeal against the contested decision or to initiate an administrative dispute, but it was possible for him to file against that decision a request for the protection of freedoms and rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of BiH, in accordance with Article 67 of the Law on Administrative Disputes of BiH. In the context of the foregoing, the Constitutional Court invoked the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Šerbečić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, decision of 26 April 2022.
AP-2848/23 (PRIJEDORPUTEVI a.d. Prijedor) - The appellant in this case complained of a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to property in the proceedings deciding on a motion for the recognition of a foreign court’s decision. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH. The Constitutional Court recalled its case law according to which, in principle, the proceedings for the “recognition of a foreign court’s decision” are not the proceedings determining the appellant’s civil rights and obligations in terms of the right to a fair trial. That is to say, the merits of the case are not deliberated on in such proceedings, but only the compliance with the statutory requirements for the recognition of a foreign court’s decision is. The appellant’s right to property was not a matter of deliberation in the pertinent case, either.
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 month.
