The right to amnesty is not included in the list of rights under Article II(3) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are secured to all persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, nor is a decision provided for by the provisions of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina relating to the “right to a fair trial”. The right to amnesty as such is not provided for by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and it Protocols.
• Ruling No. U 44/03 of 23 September 2003, paragraph 14, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/93
In the present case, the appellant did not present any evidence proving the violation of the constitutional rights allegedly committed by the lower-instance courts, but he indicated them in an arbitrary manner. The Constitutional Court does not examine ex officio the violations of the constitutional rights.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 589/03 of 11 February 2004
The appeal is manifestly ill-founded if it does not contain any of the prima facie grounds relating to the violation of a rights or freedoms provided for by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the case if, for example, the appellant did not present evidence which he alleges as grounds for filing an appeal or if it clearly follows from the facts that there is no violation.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 9/03 of 23 April 2004, paragraph 13, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/04
The appeal is manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded if the allegations on discrimination do not relate to the appellant but other persons.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 531/04 of 27 May 2005, paragraph 21, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 67/05; foreign currency savings
The appeal is manifestly ill-founded if it lacks evidence proving with sufficient clarity that the alleged violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is possible and if the appeal has no prospect of success.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 700/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 13; the appellant complains about the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention in respect of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council’s decision relating to the termination of the office of a judge
The Court has concluded that the appeal was prima facie ill-founded in proceedings where the substance of a constitutional dispute was the answer to the question whether the Law on High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina could be applied to the issue of revocation of the appellant’s immunity.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 68/03 of 22 July 2005
In the instant case, the appellant challenges the ruling extending detention and he refers to the right under Article 13 of the European Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the European Convention outlining that the challenged ruling deprived him of the right to a legal remedy. However, the appellant failed to file an appeal against the first- instance ruling, which means that the law has provided for a legal remedy to examine the lawfulness of the detention but the appellant failed to pursue it although he was informed of the possibility of pursuing it. The Constitutional Court therefore rejected as manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded the appellant’s allegations on the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1346/05 of 13 July 2005, paragraph 5
The appeal is manifestly ill-founded if it lacks prima facie evidence that shows with enough clarity that the alleged violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is possible (see ECHR, Vanek vs. Slovakia, judgment of 31 May 2005, Application No. 53363/99 and the Constitutional Court, Decision No. AP 156/05 of 18 May 2005), if the facts in respect of which the appeal is filed do not constitute the violation of the rights alleged by the appellant, i.e. if the appellant has no “arguable claim” (see ECHR, Mezőtúr-Tiszazugi Vízgazdálkodási Társulat vs. Hungary, judgment of 26 July 2005, Application No. 5503/02) and where it established that the appellant is not a “victim” of violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 808/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 10; the appellant complains about the violation of the right under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention with regards to the procedure to assume the investigation; the appeal is manifestly ill-founded
The appellant has no “arguable claim” in respect of Article 6(1) of the European Convention where he alleges the violation of the procedure which does not relate to the determination of the criminal charge against him.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 808/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 12; the appellant complains about the violation of the right under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention with regards to the procedure to assume the investigation; the appeal is manifestly ill-founded
In the instant case, the decision challenged by the appellant does not have the character of administrative act against which administrative dispute proceedings may be initiated and in which a state authority would take a decision on an administrative individual right or obligation. Therefore, the challenged decision is not in violation of the right alleged by the appellant, i.e. the appellant does not have an “arguable claim”.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2099/05 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 8
In the case where the appellant does not present any argument or evidence proving the violation of the right to non-discrimination and the submitted documents do not disclose anything which would indicate that the appellant has an “arguable claim” in respect of the alleged violation of the appellant’s right, the appellant’s allegations on the violation of the right under Article II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina are manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 257/05 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 17, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37/06
It is absolutely impossible to restrict freedom of thought within the meaning of Article 9 of the European Convention and therefore commit a violation of this right in the event that these restrictions are exceeded. On the other hand, it is possible to restrict the right to freedom of thoughts in the event when the thoughts have been expressed, which means when they have left the internal universe of a man, in which case the right to freedom of expression is restricted which is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 913/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraphs 21 and 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06
In the instant case, the appellant challenges the established facts, application of the substantive law and indicates conclusion contrary to those of the Constitutional Court. However, the appellant has not submitted evidence or facts leading to the conclusion that the violations alleged by him. The appeal was therefore declared manifestly ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1114/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 13;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1079/05 of 13 June 2006, paragraph 8;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1138/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraphs 11 and 12;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1126/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraphs 10 and 11
Taking into account the fact that the appellant has never lived in the apartment in question, i.e. that the apartment in question has never been his home, nor has it been his property, the appellant has no “arguable claim” to allege the violation of the right to return of refugees and displaced persons insofar as the impossibility of moving into apartment and concluding a contract on use is concerned, since the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina guarantees that right only to those refugees and displaced persons who return to their home, i.e. request repossession of their property.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1035/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 14
In the instant case, the appellant failed to comply with the order of the Basic Court, since he did not complete his lawsuit in accordance with the provisions of Article 53 of the Law on Civil Proceedings, which was a requirement for further conduct of the proceedings. Therefore, the appellant has no “arguable claim” to allege the violation of the right to property, since his failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Law on Civil Proceedings amounted to the ruling issued by the Basic Court which considered the appellant’s lawsuit as withdrawn.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1063/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 7
When the appellant does not present the facts and evidence which could justify the claim about the allegations on the violation of the constitutional rights so that there are no elements which indicate prima facie that a violation of the rights and freedoms under the European Convention is possible and that an examination on the merits of the case is necessary, the appeal is to be rejected as manifestly ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 949/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 17;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1067/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 10;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1918/5 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 10
Complaints in relation to the violations of the constitutional rights must be raised, at least in terms of their form, in early stages of the proceedings, if they are to be used successfully before the Constitutional Court. Taking into account the fact that the first time the appellant lodged the aforementioned complaints in his appeal filed with the Constitutional Court, such complaints are prima facie ill-founded so that they will not be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1244/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 8
As to the alleged violation of the right to property, the appellant does not refer to any of the principles laid down in these Articles, nor does he specify the violation of the right to property. His arbitrary statement that there is a violation of the right to property is not substantiated by the facts and evidence so that the appeal is manifestly ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1048/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 12;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 968/05 of 13 June 2006, paragraph 9;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1055/5 of 20 September 2006, paragraph 12;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1130/5 of 9 May 2006, paragraphs 7 and 8
The period of 11 months during which the Basic Court did not take a decision upon the appellant’s lawsuit in a case which is, as per the law, urgent, is not excessively long so that the appellant has no “arguable claim”, since there is no violation of the constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1081/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 11;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1120/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 9;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1553/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 7;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1997/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 8
The representation of the appellant as an injured party in the criminal proceedings by a selected attorney has been at his discretion, and it was not his obligation so that the ordinary courts did not have an obligation to indicate the expenses which were not necessary in the operative part of the ruling. The court dealt with them in the reasoning of the ruling, it stated the reasons for not awarding the fees to the legal representative, which did not diminish the significance of the claims which the court considered and took a decision upon it. There is nothing in the instant case which would indicate that the legal substantive regulations were arbitrarily or unjustifiably applied to the detriment of the appellant. Therefore, they are manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1110/05 of 13 June 2006, paragraphs 9 and 10
By failing to file a motion for enforcement of a decision in accordance with Article 36 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure (the enforcement document was not attached to the motion for enforcement, the motion was not filed in a sufficient number of copies and the motion did not contain the manner of collecting the debt), the appellant contributed to the situation in which the enforcement has not been completed according to the case-file. Therefore, the appellant has no “arguable claim” insofar she did not make probable in any manner the claim that the Municipal Court has refused to act upon her enforcement motion and that it is not able to enforce the legally binding judgment establishing her citizen rights and that therefore her appeal is manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded insofar as the non-enforcement of the judgment if concerned.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1344/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraphs 11 and 12
There is nothing in the instant case that indicates that the prison authorities failed to carry out a routine supervision of the prison and the state of prisoners. Nothing indicates that the prison authorities knew that there was a danger present for the prisoner’s life and that he was supposed to be under surveillance more than other prisoners. Furthermore, nothing suggested that he had had mental health problems which could escalate at the extent to take excessive quantity of drugs, which caused the coma of the prisoner and finally his death. Finally, the prison authorities had a prompt response and took him to the health care institution. Finally, all these facts indicate that the relatives of the person in question, as the appellant, did not present evidence capable of challenging the findings by the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2171/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 11
It follows from the appeal and the challenged judgment that the appellant had the status of a plaintiff who claimed the protection from the alleged defamation, which means that the claim was not directed against the appellant because of his expression. As Article 10 of the European Convention does not protect the freedom of expression, and paragraph 2 of this Article provides for the cases in which that freedom can be restricted, the Constitutional Court holds that the appellant was not a “victim” of violation of Article 10 of the European Convention so that this part of the appeal is manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 95/06 of 6 March 2007, paragraph 21
Considering the appellant’s allegations on the violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, the Constitutional Court established that the appellant contested the decision of the County Court which established that the proceedings are terminated because of the instituting the bankruptcy procedure against the defendant. The Constitutional Court concludes that, in the particular case, the County Court terminated the proceedings by applying its authority arising from Article 378(1)(4) of the Civil Procedure Code stipulating that the proceedings shall be stayed when: […] legal consequences of instituting the bankruptcy proceedings arise; […] and Article 55(1) of the Law on Bankruptcy Proceedings of the RS which stipulates that by instituting the bankruptcy proceedings, the judicial proceedings and the proceedings before the arbitration are terminated if they pertain to the bankruptcy estate […]. In the essence, the Constitutional Court notes that the appellant is dissatisfied with the court’s decision on termination of proceedings. However, the Constitutional Court recalls that the appellant’s discontent with the decision on termination of proceedings does not raise, in itself, the issues relating to the protected constitutional rights or the European Convention rights, and the appellant neither allege any procedural errors nor any such are evident (see the European Court of Human Rights, Mezőtúr-Tiszazugi Vízgazdálkodási Társulat v. Hungary, Judgement of 26 July 2005, application no. 5503/02).
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 377/06 of 18 October 2007, paragraph 9; bankruptcy procedure
In the instant case, the appellant failed to initiate civil proceedings before the competent courts with regards to the cancellation of the securities transaction. The Securities Commission and Supreme Court are not competent to deal with this issue. In other words, the Commission and Supreme Court did not deprive the appellant of the opportunity to reach a decision on the merits by the arbitrary misinterpretation of regulations, which would cancel securities transaction. Therefore, the appellant did not reach a “final” decision on the merits within the meaning of the principle of legal remedy exhaustion.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 989/06 of 27 February 2008, paragraph 18; interpretation of relevant regulations; the appeal was considered in respect of the appellant’s allegations and it has been rejected as manifestly ill-founded, although it appeared that the appeal was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of legal remedies
The appellant has no “arguable claim” capable of raising an issue under the Constitution of BiH, since he failed to claim his rights to tax refund within the time limit provided for by the Customs Law.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 59/07 of 11 March 2008, paragraphs 11 and 12; refund of special tax; appeal is manifestly ill-founded
The Constitutional Court concludes that the Municipal Court did not abuse nor arbitrarily misapply the substantive law, nor were there any other elements which would show that the proceedings were unfair. Quite the contrary, the Municipal Court acted in compliance with the positive regulations, and the interpretation of those regulations, in view of the Constitutional Court, cannot be considered arbitrary and did not amount to the violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights. According to Article 1 paragraph 2 of the Law on Enforcement Procedures, the provisions of that Law do not apply to the enforcement procedure prescribed by the special law. Taking into account that the bankruptcy procedure regulates the requirements for opening a bankruptcy procedure, the bankruptcy procedure itself, its legal effects and reorganization of the debtor incapable of payment upon the bankruptcy plan (Article 1 of the Law), it is indisputable that this law, within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure, constitutes a “special law”, i.e. lex specialis. Therefore, in a situation in which the court found that a bankruptcy procedure was open, it is indisputable that the provisions of the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure applied to the appellant’s claims, in order to settle the debt, since the settlement is a legitimate aim sought to be achieved, closely related to the principle of fairness. Therefore, the appellant’s civil right established in a legally binding court decision shall be exercised in accordance with the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 316/06 of 13 May 2008, paragraph 5; disruption of the enforcement procedure towards the party subject to enforcement due to instituting the bankruptcy proceedings
In the particular case, while deciding on the defendant’s revision-appeal the Supreme Court found that the lower instance court erroneously applied the substantive law regarding the agreement the appellant concluded with the defendant in the non- contentious settlement. The Supreme Court established that the agreement concluded on the non-contentious settlement represents the discharging of debt in terms of Articles 344(1) and 347 of the Law on Obligations and that by its conclusion any obligation of the defendant towards the plaintiffs ceased when they concluded the relevant agreement with the defendant. The Constitutional Court will not engage into consideration of the appellant’s allegations that the relevant agreement is not legally valid, given that the appellant did not present this allegation before the ordinary courts. In addition to his statement in the appeal that some of the plaintiffs emphasized such claim in the course of the first instance proceedings, he does not prove by any means that he in particular in the course of first or second instance proceedings requested the court to determine the legal validity of the relevant agreement for the reasons he pointed out in his appeal. In respect of other allegations of the appellant, the Constitutional Court could not find in the appeal or enclosed documentation any elements to indicate in the present case that the substantive regulations have been applied by the Supreme Court arbitrarily or unfairly, to the appellant’s detriment. The Constitutional Court establishes that the Supreme Court gave clear and precise reasoning for its decision which is not considered arbitrary by the Constitutional Court. For all of the above, and given that the appeal, in respect to the appellant’s allegations as to the violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, does not contain prima facie evidence, which would indicate with sufficient clarity that the alleged violation of human rights and freedoms is possible, i.e., that it would be necessary to consider the allegations of the appeal on the merits, the Constitutional Court considers it manifestly ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3389/06 of 15 January 2009, paragraph 13
The ordinary court of three instances presented clear and detailed reasons for which they dismissed the appellant’s claim as ill-founded as they established that all substantive evidence, invoices on which the appellant based his request are the invoices of his company, signed by the appellant as an executive and verified by the company’s stamp. Given this fact, the ordinary courts established that this concerns the revenues of the company and not the personal income of the appellant, and in the proceedings the appellant failed to prove that he had realized the separate, personal income which would represent his lost profit in terms of Articles 155 and 189 of the Law on Obligations, and his request was dismissed. This further means that the appellant could have a legitimate expectation to realize the right to compensation of damages for the lost profit (see the Constitutional Court, unpublished decision no. AP 3126/06 of 28 October 2008, available at the webpage of the Constitutional Court www.ustavnisud.ba ).
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 35/07 of 15 April 2009, paragraph 9; compensation of damages for the lost profit
The Constitutional Court notes that the Law on Enforcement Procedure, by stipulating that the bills and statements from business books may be considered as valid documents only if concerning the utility services of water and heating supply, and garbage disposal, has narrowed down a number of entities that may lodge the motion for enforcement on the basis of such documents or on the proposal of which the enforcement may be ordered based on specified documents. In this situation, some entities are placed in such a position that they cannot realise the enforced collection of their claims through the enforcement procedure but have to prove them in the civil proceedings prior to that. Although it acknowledges that it may represent the excessive burden for such entities, deciding on the particular case within the scope of its appellate jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court is restricted in its decision-making process in the manner specified in paragraph 9 of the present Decision. When the courts issued their decisions, clearly basing them on the relevant provisions of the Law on Enforcement Procedure which do not provide for the possibility that a valid document in terms of that law represents a document which is determined as a valid document by other law, the Constitutional Court holds that the appellants’ arguments that their allegations are well-founded could not have led to a different solution of this legal matter, having regard to Article 25 of the Law on Public Broadcasting System.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3742/08 of 29 April 2009, paragraph 11; bills as valid documents
[…] The fact that the appellant pointed out to his attorney’s omissions does not raise an issue of the right to a fair trial as the appellant could have revoked his power of attorney given to that attorney and engaged another one when he noticed the omissions in his actions. The Constitutional Court, therefore, holds that the appellant’s allegations on the violation of rights under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention are manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 451/07 of 15 April 2009, paragraph 10
[…] The Constitutional Court, also, notes that the ordinary courts based the challenged decisions on the fact that the appellant failed to prove that her late husband or she entered into contract on use of the disputed apartment on the basis of the defendant’s decision pursuant to Article 11 of the Law on Housing Relations. Furthermore, the courts indisputably established that the disputed apartment was the defendant’s business premises which was redecorated as the housing facility and allocated to the appellant’s husband as a temporary accommodation, and that it has never became an “apartment” in terms of the Law on Housing Relations. The Constitutional Court notes that the courts issued the challenged decisions through the application of the relevant provisions of the Law on Housing Relations giving sufficient and clear reasons. On the basis of aforementioned, the Constitutional Court holds that there is nothing in the particular case to indicate that the substantive regulations have been arbitrarily or unfairly applied to the appellant’s detriment. The appellant does not offer any evidence or arguments indicating the procedural unfairness in terms of Article 6(1) of the European Convention, and her dissatisfaction by the challenged decisions does not invoke, in itself, the issues relating to the right to a fair trial.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2746/06 of 29 April 2009, paragraph 11
[…] The Constitutional Court recalls that the Cantonal Court, confirming the correctness of the first instance court’s decision on the application of substantive law on the statement of appeal relating to the interruption of statute of limitations, pointed out that an excerpt from the list submitted to the court as evidence that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation, cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of debt in terms of Article 387 of the Law on Obligations as the excerpt represents a statement that the remuneration was not paid and not the acknowledgement of debt given in the form stipulated in the above Article.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 884/07 of 22 October 2009, paragraph 9 – leading decision; business books excerpt; acknowledgement of debt;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3815/08 of 21 July 2010, paragraph 16
In relation to the statements of appeal on the violation of the right to work, the Constitutional Court notes that this right is guaranteed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1996) which is applicable in Bosnia and Herzegovina under Annex I to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Court points out that these provisions provide for the “opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts”. As to the appellant’s allegations in respect of the violation of this right, the Constitutional Court notes that the appellant is a legal entity, and, as such, it cannot refer to the violation of right to work which in its essence and under the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights represents an individual right to which only natural persons can refer. Such conclusion follows from Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which guarantees that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. This follows from Article 3 of the Covenant which stipulates that: “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the present Covenant.” In view of the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court considers that the appellant cannot claim in the particular case to be a “victim” of the violation of the right to work safeguarded by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1996).
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3356/08 of 21 December 2010, paragraph 10; revocation of the violation of the right to work by a legal entity
[…] The Constitutional Court recalls that it cannot consider the allegations on the violation of right to a trial within reasonable time unless at least some phase of proceedings did not involve a judicial proceedings which have to be initiated by the party. This is not the case here. On the other hand, in such cases the issue may arise as to the right of access to a court as the decisions before Cantonal Commissions for Implementation of Article 143 of the Labour Law are the requirement for institution of the civil proceedings. Thus, the final decision of the Cantonal Commission may be subject of review in the civil proceedings before an ordinary court if a party initiated such proceedings. In the present case, the appellant’s request for reinstatement of her employment status was dismissed because of lack of requirements by the Cantonal Commission’s Decision no. 06-1981/00 of 4 September 2008. By the Decision no. 06-1981/00 of 11 November 2008, her appeal was rejected as untimely. The appellant has not challenged these decisions before the competent Federal Commission, and, consequently, she did not meet the requirements for judicial proceedings, thus, depriving herself, by her own actions, of the possibility for the Constitutional Court to consider the issue of possible violation of the right of access to court because of the length of proceedings before the competent commissions. The Constitutional Court, therefore, considers that the appeal is manifestly (prima facie) ill-founded.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1295/08 of 11 January 2011, paragraph 9;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 382/08 of 11 January 2011, paragraph 10; length of proceedings before the Commission for Implementation of Article 143
In the present case, the Constitutional Court observes that the challenged decisions of ordinary courts dismissed the appellant’s requests seeking that the fee for representation be calculated and paid so as to include VAT, reasoning that the Decision on the compensation for the costs of criminal procedure did not provide for a possibility to award to the defense attorney and pay VAT on the overall amount claimed from the budget as a defense attorney appointed ex officio. In that connection, the Constitutional Court indicates that the provisions of Article 1 of the Decision on the compensation for the costs of criminal procedure prescribes, inter alia, that the decision regulates the manner of payment of the compensation for the costs of a criminal procedure from the institution to the completion thereof which a defense attorney appointed ex officio, witnesses, interpreters, professional and other persons are entitled to, when they participate in a court procedure following the summons by a court or on the basis of a court decision. The Constitutional Court indicates that the mentioned decision did not prescribe that the amount of the fee, which a defense attorney appointed ex officio is entitled to, is calculated and paid so as to include VAT, as clearly pointed out by ordinary courts in the reasoning for their respective decisions. By connecting the Decision on the compensation for the costs of criminal procedure to the decisions rendered by ordinary courts, and the reasoning they provided in that respect, the Constitutional Court, contrary to the appellant’s allegations, did not find any arbitrariness in the conduct by the ordinary courts in that regard. Also, the Constitutional Court did not find arbitrariness in the reasoning provided by the second-instance court regarding the appellant’s references to the Law on Value Added Tax of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3262/13 of 28 April 2016, paragraph 13; costs of representation ex officio increased by VAT
