In accordance with Article 18(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court rejected a number of appeals lodged in an untimely fashion, after the expiration of the time-limit for submitting appeal or prematurely in cases in which it was established that the appellants failed to use all available legal remedies in the preceding proceedings.

The Court adopted a number of decisions in which appeals were rejected as inadmissible which are manifestly prima facie ill-founded as the requests of appellants were not justified i.e. the facts the appellants presented to the Court in those cases could not have in any manner justified the claim of the appellants that there is a violation of their rights protected by the Constitution or that the parties in the proceedings bear consequences of violation of rights protected by the Constitution.

Constitutional Court, inter alia, decided on the appeals in relation to Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Within deciding on the appeal, the Court adopted a number of decisions establishing a violation of the appellants’ rights to a fair trial and dismissed a number of appeals as ill-founded in cases in which it found no such violation.

For the illustration purposes, we present the following:

The Constitutional Court of BiH dismissed as ill-founded the appeal of Mr. Abid Sehovic from Brodarevo, lodged against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 65 0 P 202066 11 Rev of 24 July 2012.

The appellant claimed in the appeal lodged against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Federation of BiH that it violated his right under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In support of his claim, the appellant emphasized that the challenged judgment of the Supreme Court confirmed the first instance judgment and established that the guarantee contract is legally valid pursuant to the principle of faith in the land registry books but that the right to action is not mentioned which is why his claim is dismissed by the first instance judgment as ill-founded.

Further, the appellant considers that the guarantee contract, concluded between the first and second defendant, cannot be legally valid as there is no permissible legal grounds for the purpose of Article 51 of the Law on Contractual Relations for this legal transaction. The appellant claims that it is undisputable that the first defendant concluded a legal transaction with the second defendant in good faith and by relying on the land registry books. However, it is also undisputable that the second defendant was aware during the conclusion of the contract that he is not an actual owner of the real property on which registration of mortgage is allowed and that he abused the current status of the land registry books.

In the appellant’s opinion, the principle of the faith in the land registry books cannot be superior to the principle that no party can transfer more right than he/she has to another party or that the principle of faith in the land registry books cannot have for its consequence the deprivation or restriction of the right of ownership of someone else or the right to property. Finally, the appellant emphasized that pursuant to the Law on Obligations, the first defendant had the possibility to recover damages from the second defendant who concluded the contract without permissible legal grounds.

Deciding on the appeal, the Constitutional Court concluded that there is no violation of the right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention when in the circumstances of the present case the challenged decisions result in the interference with the appellant’s right to property which is based on the law and is in the service of the legitimate aim and which in turn does not bring into question the fair balance between the general interest and interest of the individual in a manner that the excessive burden is placed on the appellant. The Constitutional Court therefore dismissed the appeal.

In all cases in which the Constitutional Court found there was a violation of the appellants’ right to a fair trial, the competent courts or administrative authorities were ordered to complete the proceedings urgently and inform the Constitutional Court, in line with Article 72(5) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of BiH, within three months from the date of submission of decision, on the measures taken to enforce the decisions.

All decisions taken at the session shall be delivered to the appellants within a time-limit of one month and posted on the official website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.