The Constitutional Court is not competent to review the decisions of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision No. U 13/01 of 31 August 2001

The Constitutional Court is not competent to review the CRPC’s decisions. Moreover, the Constitutional Court does not see any reason why it would treat this case any differently than in accordance with its case-law. Moreover, the Constitutional Court outlines that that in the instant case, the Ministry of Defense of the Federation filed a claim with the CRPC to review the decisions in question and that the CRPC has not decided the claim yet and that there is no conclusion on the eviction by the competent housing authority, whereby he was ordered to move out of the apartment.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 223/04 of 17 March 2004

In the instant case, the Constitutional Court finds it is not competent to decide the appeal lodged against information of the administrative authority, since it cannot be considered a judgment, at least not within the meaning of the words rendered by any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. it cannot be considered a decision within the meaning of Article 15(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 141/04 of 29 September 2004

The Constitutional Court is not competent to decide the case, since it follows from the case-file that the appellant did not intend to file an appeal with the Constitutional Court but an appeal against the decision on the plea of immunity within the competence determined by the provisions of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was mistakenly sent to the Constitutional Court due to an error in the legal remedy instruction.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 617/04 of 29 September 2004, paragraphs 8 and 9

The Constitutional Court is not competent to decide the appeal which was filed against a public vacancy announcement, since it cannot be considered a judgment rendered by any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. it cannot be considered a decision within the meaning of Article 15(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 704/04 of 14 October 2004, paragraph 4

The Constitutional Court is not competent to review the Decision of the CRPC to resolve the legal status relevant to such decision.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1206/05 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 4;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1524/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 8;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1827/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 8

The Constitutional Court is not competent to take a decision upon the appeals lodged against the acts which have no status of a judgment or at least not to the same extent as those rendered by any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in other words those acts have no status of decisions within the meaning of Article 15(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 624/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 5; an administrative dispute concerning the change of purpose of agricultural land; the appeal is inadmissible due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction to decide the matter, expiry of time limit, non-exhaustion of legal remedies, ratione materiae incompatibility with the Constitution

The Constitutional Court has no appellate jurisdiction to assess whether a law or general act violates some of the appellants’ constitutional rights.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 666/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 4; the appellants have lodged an appeal against Articles 1 and 3 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Privatization of state-owned Apartments claiming that the said law violates their right to non-discrimination; the appeal is inadmissible due to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to take a decision;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 905/08 of 4 September 2008, paragraph 4

The Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees under Annex 7 of the Dayton Peace Agreement for the reason that the Commission is not to be considered a court of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it functions outside the standard judicial structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 736/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 6

In the case at hand, the Constitutional Court is not competent to decide upon the appeal whereby no judgment of any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina is challenged, in other words whereby no decision is challenged within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court but the appeal is related to the request for assistance in rebuilding a family house devastated during the war.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2077/05 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 4

Bearing in mind that the appellant has failed to state that he challenges the judgments of ordinary courts or to refer to violations of specific constitutional rights which he deems to have been violated but only expressed his dissatisfaction with the employer’s conduct and then requested the payment of his severance package, the Constitutional Court interpreted this appeal as if the appellant had addressed the Constitutional Court directly seeking assistance in settling his claim for severance package to be paid by the former employer. In connection with the aforesaid, it is pointed out that according to Article VI(3)(b) of the BiH Constitution, the Constitutional Court is not authorized to provide such kind of assistance. Namely, the Constitutional Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over issues under this Constitution arising out of a judgment of any other court in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1076/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 4

The Constitutional Court has, inter alia, the jurisdiction under Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to which: “the Constitutional Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over issues under this Constitution arising out of a judgment of any other court in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. In this specific case, the Constitutional Court concludes that it is not competent to take a decision upon the appeal which does not challenge a judgment of any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina or a decision within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1165/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 6; lodged against the decision of the Municipal Council;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1337/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 7; lodged against a letter of the Mayor of the Municipality Velika Kladuša;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1356/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 6; lodged against an act of the Cantonal Public Prosecutor’s Office;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1362/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraph 30; lodged against the Contract on Construction, Financing, Designing and Management

The Constitutional Court recalls its jurisdiction under Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to which: the Constitutional Court shall have appellate jurisdiction over issues under this Constitution arising out of a judgment of any other court in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As to this specific case, the Constitutional Court considers that it is not competent to decide upon the appeal against the work of market inspectors since there is no judgment or a decision adopted by any other court in Bosnia and Herzegovina that could be challenged by the appeal.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2243/05 of 20 September, paragraph 3

Bearing in mind that in the present case the CRPC decision has been challenged and that this decision was adopted after the Agreement of 20 May 2004 as it was the case with the previous decision of the Constitutional Court No. AP 2633/05 of 12 April 2006, the Constitutional Court, following its earlier practice and the reasoning from the cited decision, concluded that it has no jurisdiction to take a decision.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1440/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 7;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1604/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraphs 8 and 9;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1882/05 of 13 October 2005, paragraphs 7 and 8;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 105/08 of 21 July 2010, paragraphs 16 and 17; length of proceedings before the CRPC

Given the fact that the CRPC decisions are final and legally binding and that pursuant to the mentioned Agreement they have the same legal force as the decisions of former CRPC, it follows that the constitutional and legal status of the CRPC remained unchanged after 20 May 2004 and that it is the institution sui generis which cannot be considered a court in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the Constitutional Court is not competent to review its decisions since the CRPC performs its duty outside the scope of standard judicial structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2346/07 of 13 September 2007, paragraph 14

As to the case where the appellant alleges that there was a violation of the provisions of the Constitution of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court is not competent to take a decision on the lodged appeal since the said appeal, within the meaning of Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, has not raised an issue “under this Constitution”.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1006/06 of 13 December 2007, paragraph 10

The Constitutional Court has consistently underlined in its case-law that it is not competent to review decisions of the Human Rights Chamber and Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This legal position may also be applied to the Constitutional Court’s decisions rendered in the cases registered with the former Chamber (“CH”-cases). Therefore, although, formally and legally, they are the decisions of the Constitutional Court, these decisions differ from “usual” cases and decisions of the Constitutional Court in that they are treated under Annex 6 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereby the Constitutional Court acts under the special Rules of Procedure, and whereby the same case-law of the Constitutional Court applies to them as if they were decisions of the Chamber, i.e. of the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2479/07 of 25 January 2008, paragraph 12

The Constitutional Court reminds of its jurisdiction referred to in Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to which “the Constitutional Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over issues under this Constitution, arising out of a judgement of any other court in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. According to the mentioned provisions, within the scope of its appellate jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court may consider the appeals filed against the judgement, that is, decision by which a certain proceedings was completed. Hence, it follows that in the appellate proceedings the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to consider whether certain law, that is, general enactment, in itself, violates some of the constitutional rights of the appellant.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 905/08 of 4 September 2008, paragraph 4

Unlike the situation when HJPC acts in a disciplinary proceeding that, under certain conditions and in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court, has a character of the criminal proceedings, in the case at hand, the HJPC acted within the limits of its public law authority to ensure an independent and impartial judiciary in the procedure of appointing a judicial office holder, that is, annulling the decision on that appointment. Therefore, since its aim is to ensure the independent, impartial and professional judiciary as a whole, the decision in these proceedings according to its legal significance is not the same as the decision rendered in disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors in which the individual disciplinary, i.e. criminal liability of the judicial office holder is to be determined in the proceedings for which the Constitutional Court has already established that it has the character of judicial decision-making. As regards this segment of its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court holds that the HJPC is establishing professional and efficient judicial system and that the challenged decision is not the decision taken by the judicial authority, but the decision taken by an independent and autonomous authority of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the Constitutional Court finds that in this case the HJPC did not act in the capacity of a tribunal, which is why the challenged decision has no character of the judgement. Therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that it has no jurisdiction to decide on the appeal filed from the HJPC decision to annul the appointment of the appellant to the position of the prosecutor with the District Prosecutor’s Office because it is not the decision that has a status of a judgment, at least not to the extent that “it has been rendered by any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, i.e. it has no status of a decision pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1091/07 of 14 April 2010, paragraphs 9 and 10

The Constitutional Court has no appellate jurisdiction to consider the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of BiH referring to abstract jurisdiction, that is, it has no jurisdiction to consider whether the decision by the entity constitutional court, by which a certain law or general enactment has been revoked/amended, violates certain constitutional rights of the appellant.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2391/07 of 27 November 2010, paragraph 13, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/11; modification of case-law from the case no. U 5/99 when it comes to decisions that the entity constitutional courts issued while assessing the constitutionality

As the appellant essentially did not institute an appellate proceeding in the present case within the meaning of Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, instead he only filed a request for adoption of a judicial measure of insurance within the meaning of the Law on Civil Procedure, for the reason that he failed to obtain such a measure in a civil procedure before an ordinary court, the Constitutional Court deems that, within the meaning of Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 77(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, it has no competence to decide such a request.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 4142/11 of 20 December 2011, paragraph 8; the appellant addressed the Constitutional Court with a submission explicitly titled “Request for an interim measure” without connecting this request to the challenging of any decision of a competent court

Turning to the present case, given the fact that the appellants challenge the decision of the Constitutional Court of the F BiH, wherein it found that the provisions of the Law on Notaries were incompatible with the Entity’s Constitution, the Constitutional Court, having remained supportive of its own case-law in the cases where the identical legal issues were raised, holds that it is not competent to consider the mentioned decision of the Entity’s Constitutional Court.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2567/16 of 16 February 2018, paragraph 9, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/18; decisions of the Entities’ Constitutional Courts rendered within their abstract jurisdiction