At today&S217;s 96th Plenary Session, the first one held in 2016, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina decided on a number of requests for the review of constitutionality and appeals on purported violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
For illustration we single out the following:
While deciding on the case no. U 3/15, due to the lack of competence of the Constitutional Court to decide in this case, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected the request lodged by the Municipal Court in Čapljina. It sought that it be established that the failure to enact regulations on enforcement on the part of the executive authority with respect to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (&S220;Official Gazette of FBiH&S221;, nos. 29/98, 49/00, 32/01, 73/05, 59/06, 4/09 and 55/12) and the Law on Defense of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (&S220;Official Gazette of FBiH&S221;), no. 15/96) constituted a legal gap leading to the violations of the rights safeguarded by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It also sought that it be ordered that regulations on enforcement securing the rights of the military insurance beneficiaries be enacted.
While deciding on the case no. U 6/15, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina dismissed the request lodged by the Municipal Court in Sarajevo for the review of compatibility of Article 37 paragraph 4 of the Law on Taxi Transportation in Sarajevo Canton (&S220;Official Gazette of Sarajevo Canton&S221;, no. 11/14), on the grounds that it established that Article 37 paragraph 4 of the Law on Taxi Transportation in Sarajevo Canton (&S220;Official Gazette of Sarajevo Canton&S221;, no. 11/14) was compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
While deciding on the case no. U 8/15, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected as inadmissible the request lodged by the Municipal Court in Sarajevo for the review of compatibility of the Law on Salaries and Other Compensations in Judicial and Prosecutorial Institutions at the Level of Bosnia and Herzegovina (&S220;Official Gazette of BiH&S221; nos. 90/05, 32/07) with Articles I(2) and II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 paras 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because it was the issue that the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina had already decided on, and based on the allegations or evidence presented in the request it did not follow that new decision-making was warranted (the Constitutional Court of BiH, Decision no. U 29/13 of 28 March 2014, &S220;Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina&S221;, no. 40/14).
While deciding on the case no. AP 2960/12, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina dismissed as ill-founded the appeal lodged by Mr. Memo Kari&&53;ik against the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 09 0 U 000844 11 Uvp of 11 May 2012 and the Judgment of the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo no. 09 0 U 000844 07 U of 21 June 2011, because it concluded that there was no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention where the Supreme Court and the Cantonal Court, in the reasoning of their respective decisions, provided detailed and clear reasons as to the enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court no. AP 2301/06 and the appellant&S217;s right in that decision, as a member of the family household of her grandmother, within the meaning of Article 6 and Article 21 paragraph 2 of the Law on Housing Relations, and the Constitutional Court did not find such a reasoning to be arbitrary.
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina also considered the appeal lodged by BOR Bank Shareholding Company in Sarajevo against the Ruling of the Cantonal Court in Bihać no. 22 0 Ip 005657 12 Pž of 3 September 2012 and the Ruling of the Municipal Court in Sanski Most no. 22 0 Ip 005657 09 Ip of 12 January 2012, wherein the appellant, through the attorney, claimed that the challenged ruling of the Cantonal Court violated its rights under Article II(3)(e) and (k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
Essentially, inter alia, the appellant held and indicated in the appeal that the mentioned rights were violated, because the challenged rulings erroneously established the facts of the case, erroneously applied the substantive law, and that the reasons of the challenged second-instance decision failed to provide a logical and convincing reasoning for a conclusion that the first-instance court, through correct assessment of the presented evidence, correctly and completely established the facts of the case for which it provided legally valid reasons.
The Constitutional Court concluded that there was no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, because the circumstances of the present case carried nothing suggesting a conclusion that the ordinary courts had arbitrarily established the facts of the case and applied arbitrarily the substantive law, in respect of which detailed reasons and explanations were included in the challenged decisions.
The Constitutional Court concluded that there was no violation of the right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention where the violation of the mentioned right was linked to the arbitrarily established facts of the case and the arbitrary application of the substantive law, and in connection thereto the lack of the reasoning in the challenged decisions. Thus the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no arbitrariness in that respect. Therefore, the Constitutional Court of BiH dismissed this appeal as ill-founded.
All the decisions on the requests for the review of constitutionality and on the appeals, as adopted at the session, will be delivered within one month to the applicants and appellants respectively and will be posted on the official website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
