There is no violation of the appellant’s right to freedom of movement and residence under Article II(3)(m) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention when this right has been restricted in the lawful proceedings, on the basis of relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina by issuance of the measures necessary in the democratic society for the prevention of crime and by which the principle of proportionality has not been infringed to the appellant’s detriment.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 5314/14 of 14 May 2015, paragraph 34; prohibition measure – prohibition to leave the place of residence and travel; there is no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention
The provision of Article 140b paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH prescribes that when deciding on custody, the Court may impose the house arrest, travel ban and other prohibiting measures ex officio, instead of ordering or prolonging the custody. [...] in accordance with the provisions of Article 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH, if the accused was duly summoned but obviously avoids appearing at the main trial, and if apprehension was not successful, the court is authorized to order that the accused be placed in custody, and if the order regarding custody is not overruled, it shall last until the pronouncement of the verdict, and at a maximum of 30 days. Based on the provision of Article 140b paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH it follows that when deciding on custody, the Court may impose the house arrest, travel ban and other prohibiting measures ex officio, instead of ordering or prolonging the custody. [...] By connecting the aforementioned to the circumstances of the present case, the Constitutional Court observes that, as it follows from the minutes from the main trial [...], that is to say as the court itself established and noted in the minutes, the accused (the appellant) was not duly summoned, therefore it follows that this condition has not been met in order for the court to undertake measures in accordance with the powers referred to in Article 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court observes that the challenged rulings imposed on the appellant the prohibiting measure pending the completion of the criminal procedure, and the provision of Article 261 paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH explicitly prescribes that the custody so ordered, as well as prohibiting measures ordered against the appellant as an alternative to the custody, may last 30 days at the longest. In order to order prohibiting measures against the appellant, which, in accordance with provision of Article 140b paragraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH, may last not later than the date on which the verdict becomes legally binding, as determined under the challenged rulings, there had to be, in accordance with the provision of Article 140b paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH a proposal of a party to the proceeding, which went amiss in the present case. It follows from the aforementioned that the prohibiting measures ordered against the appellant had not been ordered in accordance with the law, which is sufficient to establish a violation of the appellant’s right without considering additional allegations with respect to the justification of prohibiting measures.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2098/18 of 17 July 2018, paragraphs 38 to 40, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 58/18; prohibiting measures - house arrest and travel ban; violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention
