An appeal is deemed to be premature if it is lodged against the decision adopted in the course of enforcement proceedings while the proceedings on admissibility of enforcement is pending before the competent Municipal Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 28/03 of 17 May 2004, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04, paragraph 7
Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code (Article 364), even though according to the domestic legislation the revision is classified as extraordinary legal remedy, the effects that it may produce on the parties to the proceedings, if deemed to be admissible, are the reason for classifying it within the category which is at the same level as ordinary legal remedies. Accordingly, with the aim of meeting the formal requirements under Article 15 paragraph 3 and Article 16 paragraph 2 of the Rules of the Procedure of the Constitutional Court, the exhaustion of this remedy is required as well. As to the case at hand, the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon the request for revision-appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 78/03 of 25 June 2004, paragraph 13
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1134/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraphs 8 and 9
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 969/05 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 6
The appeal is considered premature if the appellant’s case, after the proceeding upon the complaint before the Supreme Court, is remitted to the court of first instance for the renewal of proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 616/04 of 9 December 2004, paragraph 7
The appeal is considered premature if the subject of challenge by the appeal is the ruling which does not constitute a “final decision on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations”, i.e. which does not constitute a final decision on the appellant’s claim
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 650/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 6
As to the appellant’s allegations relating to the right to a fair trial, the appeal is deemed to be premature since the Ruling of the Court of BiH on extending the appellant’s prison sentence, which is challenged by this appeal, is not a decision that would represent a result of an entire criminal proceedings against the appellant but rather the said proceedings are in the stage of repeated presentation of evidence, which means that the proceedings has not been concluded yet.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 252/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 49/06
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 542/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 57/06
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2162/05 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 14
In the case at hand, the appeal is deemed to be premature for it is lodged prior to adoption of the decision of the Supreme Court on revision-appeal. After the adoption of the decision on revision-appeal, regardless of the type and reasons for that decision, the appellant has a possibility to lodge an appeal again, in which he is obliged to refer to this decision of the Constitutional Court under item 8(a) of the appeal form titled “other decisions” as stipulated under Article 19(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 909/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 9
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1277/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 10
In the instant case, the appellant lodged the appeal with the Cantonal Ministry of Housing Affairs in Sarajevo against the challenged ruling of the Administration. According to the allegations from the appeal, the Cantonal Ministry of Housing Affairs in Sarajevo has not adopted the decision on the complaint yet. Therefore, the appeal is premature.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1077/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraph 8
In the case at hand, upon the motion of the Institution for Parental Rights Revocation, the appellate proceeding against the appellant is pending before the Municipal Court. Thus, the appeal is premature.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1278/05 of 13 July 2005, paragraph 7
The proceeding initiated by the appeal is pending before the Cantonal Court, which received the lawsuit for resolution of administrative dispute. Therefore, it follows that the appeal is premature.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1302/05 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 6
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2075/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 10
In the instant case the appellants have failed to initiate any proceedings in which they would arrive at a final judgment, in other words a decision that could be the subject of review by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the appeal is deemed to be premature.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2106/05 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 6
Bearing in mind the consistent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and its own prevailing case-law, the Constitutional Court finds that the challenged decision of the Court of BiH is not a decision which in any of its parts constitutes an outcome of the entire criminal proceeding against the appellant within the meaning of establishing well- foundedness of criminal charge against them, because in the challenged decisions only procedural issues have been resolved, i.e. the decision was made with regards to the well- foundedness of previous remarks of the appellant against the criminal charge, including the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. Given that the proceeding of establishing well- foundedness of “the criminal charge” against the appellant within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention is in progress before the Court of BiH, it follows that the appeals are premature.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 785/08 of 31 January 2009, paragraph 29; subject-matter jurisdiction, examination of the right to a fair trial with regards to the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction in cases where criminal proceeding has not been completed yet
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 894/09 of 30 May 2009, paragraph 10
