By submitting a request for extraordinary mitigation of penalty and renewal of proceedings, which are ineffective legal remedies, the appellant lodged his appeal after the expiry of time limit specified under the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 20/03 of 17 March 2004, paragraph 9 et seq.;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1053/05 of 28 June 2005, paragraphs 6 and 7;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1091/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraphs 8 and 9
A decision whereby a legal remedy was rejected for the reason that the appellant failed to comply with the formal requirements of legal remedy (time-limit, payment of fees, official form or fulfillment of other law requirements) cannot be considered a final decision. Using such a legal remedy shall not terminate the time limit of 60 days stipulated under Article 15(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 407/04 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 14, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/04
Pursuing an ineffective legal remedy shall not terminate the time limit of 60 days for
lodging an appeal with the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 532/04 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 12
The requests for renewal of proceedings which were concluded by legally binding decisions do not constitute effective legal remedies, unless they have achieved success and resulted in the re-opening of the proceedings. Consequently, such requests do not terminate the time limit of 60 days for lodging an appeal with the Constitutional Court stipulated under Article 15(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (see Constitutional Court, Decision no. AP 49/03 of 17 March 2004; former European Commission for Human Rights, judgment G. vs. the Federal Republic of Germany, Application no. E 10431/83 of 16 December 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR), no. 35).
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 723/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 10
Arule on exhaustion of legal remedies requires that an appellant arrives at a final decision. A final decision represents a response to the last legal remedy used which is effective and adequate to examine a lower instance decision in both factual and legal aspects. A decision whereby a legal remedy has been rejected for the reason that the appellant has failed to meet the formal requirements (time-limit, payment of fees, form or fulfillment of other law requirements) cannot be considered a final decision. Pursuing such kind of legal remedy does not terminate the 60 days time-limit stipulated under Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court. In the present case the appellant’s revision petition was rejected as inadmissible and therefore it constituted an ineffective legal remedy. Accordingly, a final decision is the decision of the Cantonal Court. By submitting the revision petition which was subsequently rejected, the appellant has failed to lodge an appeal within the time limit stipulated under the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 910/05 of 28 June 2005, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1050/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 6;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1051/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraphs 7 and 8;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1068/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraphs 7 and 8
In this specific case, the request for renewal of proceedings does not constitute an effective legal remedy which terminates the time-limit of 60 days for lodging appeal and which the appellant was not obliged to use prior to lodging the appeal. By submitting this request the appellant has failed to lodge the appeal within the time limit provided in the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 904/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraphs 9 and 10
Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, as a requirement for admissibility of appeal, stipulates an obligation for the appellant to file an appeal within a time-limit of 60 days as from the date on which the decision on the last legal remedy used was served on him/her. This time-limit of 60 days also applies filing supplements to the appeal. A supplement to the appeal filed after the expiry of the relevant time-limit will be accepted only under exceptional circumstances and it should be related to new legal circumstances that occurred after the expiry of the mentioned time limit. A possibility for filing a supplement to appeal should in no way be so widely interpreted as to imply that the appellant has a right to supplement his appeal all the time in relation to the same facts and the same challenged decisions while the proceedings conducted upon the appeal lodged with the Constitutional Court is pending and the time limit of 60 days has expired.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1426/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 49, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 11/07
At the time of filing the appeal, there was a legally binding judgment rendered upon the appellant’s lawsuit. Although the proceedings upon the revision petition of the defendant- counter-plaintiff is still pending, the Constitutional Court shall consider the appellant’s allegations about the court’s failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable time in relation to the proceedings which was conducted upon her lawsuit and then concluded by legally binding judgment of the Cantonal Court because the appellant only complains about that part of the proceedings. In a situation where the appellant complains about the violation of the right to a fair trial due to the court’s failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and given the fact that prior to filing an appeal with the Constitutional Court there was a legally binding decision which was already adopted and delivered, the appeal shall be considered as timely appeal only if filed within the time limit stipulated under Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1839/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 6
Any formal co-litigant disposes of his/her claim independently and the competent court may take different decisions in regards to individual formal co-litigants. Accordingly, formal co-litigation is a legal mechanism, which is primarily aimed at conducting proceedings in compliance with the principle of cost-effectiveness. However, the said fact is not to be abused when it comes to pursuing legal remedies or to evade the prohibition to file a revision petition if a single or several interested parties have failed to meet the eligibility requirement relating to the amount of BAM 10,000. In other words, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant should take the advantage of the fact that in the case at hand they have brought a single action as formal co-litigants, i.e. that a single lawsuit has been launched by the formal co-litigants against the defendant. If the plaintiffs had acted independently which was procedurally possible, then neither the individual plaintiffs nor the defendants would have been entitled to file a revision petition.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2683/07 of 14 February 2008, paragraph 7
A revision petition in civil proceedings is an effective legal remedy provided that the appellant has met all requirements prescribed by law (Decision of the Constitutional Court No. AP 1121/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 21). In that case a time-limit of 60 days for filing an appeal starts running from the day of receiving the decision on revision. A contrario, if the revision is not admissible, the appellant is obliged to address the Constitutional Court within 60 days from the day of receiving the second-instance decision, i.e. the legally binding judicial decision (Decision of the Constitutional Court no. AP 2684/06 of 5 June 2007, paragraph 10). Taking into account an exception provided for under Article 237(3) of the Law on Civil Proceedings according to which the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska may allow revision in all cases, including those in which the requirement of financial means test was not met, the appellant has a possibility to address the Constitutional Court by filing an appeal within 60 days from receiving the final second instance court decision, but he/she may also file a revision petition but in that case he/she is obliged to inform the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court shall reject the appeal as premature because if the Constitutional Court would take a decision before the revision decision by the Supreme Court is adopted that might lead to a prejudiced opinion about the issue arising from the filed revision. However, upon the adoption of the revision decision, regardless of the type and reasons of that decision, the appellant may file an appeal again, in which, as stipulated under Article 19(3) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, he/she is obliged to make a note in the appeal form regarding this decision of the Constitutional Court, i.e. in item 8.a) titled “Other Decisions” (Decision of the Constitutional Court no. AP 106/06 of 23 February 2006, paragraph 9).
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2579/06 of 3 April 2008, paragraph 6
