The Constitutional Court is a domestic institution of appellate jurisdiction in the view of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in that sense, regardless of the fact that the proceedings were not finalized, it has to point out violations of rights guaranteed by the European Convention and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision No. U 34/01 of 22 June 2001, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/01; the criminal proceedings were not conducted by the court established under law; the proceedings initiated upon an objection as to the subject matter jurisdiction; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The rule that the time-limit should be calculated from the date on which the judgment was communicated to the defendant and not to his attorney cannot be considered to be of such a nature as to raise an issue of violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
• Decision No. U 36/01 of 3 November 2001, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7/02; criminal proceedings, a time limit on pursuing a legal remedy; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The ordinary courts’ failure to resolve a plea of immunity, as an important preliminary issue in the criminal proceedings, constitutes a violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial.
• Decisions Nos. U 59/01, U 60/01 and U 61/01 of 10 May 2002, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/02; the criminal proceedings; immunity; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 412/04 of 29 October 2004, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/05; the criminal proceedings; a plea of immunity, no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The legislative body must not regulate the statute of limitations in a manner which would result in an essential impossibility or unjustified difficulties in the exercise of the rights in question, but this mechanism is necessary to secure legal certainty.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 158/03 of 22 September 2003, paragraph 35, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 5/05
Even if some rights could clearly be classified as being in the field of public law which falls outside the scope of Article 6 of the European Convention, it is necessary to secure, within the national framework, the minimum procedural guarantees of the conduct of proceedings in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention, and the ultimate obligation falls particularly on judicial bodies which have the constitutional obligation, regardless of the character of the dispute, to secure full compliance with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision No. U 148/03 of 28 November 2003, paragraph 51, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1/04; administrative proceedings and administrative dispute; the application of Article 6 in the proceedings related to customs duties, a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3) of the Constitution of BiH established
The European Convention protects, in principle, individuals, non-governmental organizations or associations of citizens. Therefore, Article 6 of the European Convention does not provide for the protection for the state authorities and institutions vested with public powers. Moreover, the European Convention stipulates that state authorities at all levels are obliged to act in accordance with the rights and obligations mentioned therein. Consequently, the Constitutional Court holds that the appellant (the Federal Ministry of Defence) does not enjoy the protection under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
• Decision No. U 5/02 of 21 January 2004, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6/04; administrative proceedings, the repossession of the apartment; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The dispute concerns an economic issue and it falls within the scope of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention in case where the appellant is entitled to seek in accordance with laws the repayment of the overpaid customs levy, which is to be deemed his property and which embodies a “civil right”. In view of the above, the Constitutional Court concludes that Article 6 of the European Convention is applicable to the present case.
• Decision No. U 46/03 of 23 April 2004, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/04; administrative proceedings and administrative dispute on the repayment of the overpaid levies
The appellant has not stated any procedural error or irregularity that might have an effect on the fairness of the proceedings, nor is there any other element that might make it unfair. Contrary to the allegations stated in the appeal, the case file reveals that the appellant was given the possibility to represent his interests in all proceedings at all levels and, based on the fully clear reasons stated in the challenged decisions enacted in accordance with law, it may be concluded that there are no evidence that the courts acted unfairly or contrary to Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 61/03 of 19 March 2004, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15/04;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 68/03 of 17 May 2004, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/04;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 105/03 of 26 August 2004, paragraphs 24 and 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/04;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 910/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 73/05
The Constitutional Court’s task is not to give a ruling as to whether statements of witnesses were properly admitted as evidence, but rather to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among other authorities, Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Doorson vs. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, Reports on Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, paragraph 67).
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 71/02 of 28 April 2004, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/04; non- contentious proceedings to issue an order cancelling the lease agreement related to the business premises at issue
There is no violation of the right to a fair trial in the situation where the appellants’ claims were dismissed for a failure to comply with the legal time-limit.
• Decision No. AP 28/02 of 15 June 2004, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/04; administrative proceedings for repayment of money paid for special customs duties
As to the issue of witnesses and evidence, Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention does not require that the court deals with all arguments put forward by the parties during the course of proceedings, but only with those the court considers to be relevant. The court has to take into account the arguments of the parties to the proceedings, but there is no need for all of them to be reflected in the reasoning of the judgment (see Constitutional Court, Decision No. U 62/05 of 5 April 2002, paragraph 19, the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/02). Discretionary power enjoyed by each court contributes to the efficient conduct of the proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 45/02 of 30 June 2004, paragraph 63, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04; the transfer of the occupancy right from the grandfather to the grandson, the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
In the course of evidentiary proceedings, the County Court heard the criminal intelligence service authorized officers and the relevant investigative judge, who explicitly claimed that the appellant had presented his defence and admitted the crime without being subjected to compulsory powers or threat. In addition, the investigative judge’s conclusion was based on his direct observations of signs of physical coercion or a fear of the accused. Consequently, there is no violation of the right to a fair trial.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 50/03 of 21 July 2004, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/04
The Constitutional Court holds that the appellant had the opportunity in the course of proceedings as a whole to present all evidence serving to establish the facts decisive in rendering the court judgments. Furthermore, the courts took into account all allegations and assertions and examined the appellant’s claims on the basis of applicable legal provisions and provided sufficiently clear reasons for their decisions within the meaning of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention. In the view of the Constitutional Court there is no indication that the proceedings were conducted unfairly nor is there any indication of any procedural violations as regards the respect of the principle of fair trial.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 91/02 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 20, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/04;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 152/02 of 15 June 2004, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04
Given that the appellant, in his appeal, complains of a violation of his right to a fair trial based on the improper composition of the court of first instance and given that there are no other indications that the court proceedings were conducted unfairly, the Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 216/03 of 29 September 2004, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 54/04
There is no violation of the right to a fair trial on the ground that the appellants had no opportunity to question the expert at the main trial.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 280/03 of 27 October 2004, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 54/04
The fairness of the proceedings is assessed on the basis of the proceedings as a whole.
• Decision onAdmissibility and Merits No. AP 381/04 of 27 October 2004, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/05; criminal proceedings, the facts established by the court of first instance are challenged; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 404/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; the proceedings to establish the amount of compensation; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The ordinary court’s decision not to merge the litigations does not constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial, as it relates to the procedural decision taken by the court pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 289/04 of 30 November 2004, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/05
The ordinary court’s interpretation related to the appellant’s disapproval in respect of the gift agreement does not constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e)of the Constitution of BiH and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 545/03 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/05; the cancellation of the gift agreement based on the disapproval
There is an excessive burden placed on individuals by the legal provision stipulating that the claims which are established in the legally binding court judgments will be settled by issuing of bonds with the maturity date of up to 50 years which justifiably imposes the question whether any of the citizens who will possess such type of bonds will live to charge these bonds and thus exercise their rights.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 288/03 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/05; delayed enforcement of the legally binding court judgments of the Republika Srpska
The fact that the ruling terminating the appellant’s employment, on the basis of which his employment contract ceased ex lege, was delivered to the appellant after he had finished serving his prison sentence does not in itself constitute a breach of the right to a fair trial since the appellant had and used the legal remedies stipulated for the protection of his rights.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 119/04 of 9 December 2004, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15/05
The consideration of the validity of indictment and evidence collected without an investigative judge is irrelevant where the indictment has already entered into force and the appellant has failed to file an objection in order to correct any possible failures in proceedings before the ordinary courts with regard to the lawfulness of the indictment.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 476/04 of 17 December 2004, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/05; criminal proceedings, compensation of the costs of the criminal proceedings, there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The public interest in terms of the limitation of the right by regulation of certain time limits is reflected in the efficient functioning of the legal system and legal certainty; the appellant’s failure to comply with the legally prescribed time limits, prevented the ordinary courts to decide on the merits of the appellant’s claim, which is not in opposition to the requirements set out in Article 6 paragraph 1 of European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 150/04 of 17 February 2005, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 36/05
Enforcement of a judgment issued by any court should be considered as an integral part
of the “trial” within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 464/04 of 17 February 2005, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; impossibility to enforce the legally binding court decision awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damages suffered due to the death of the appellants’ family member, access to courts; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)
(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The appellant’s assertions that the court of first instance failed to establish the facts correctly and completely do not give rise to a constitutional issue falling within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 74/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/05
There is no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention in case where the ordinary courts in the relevant case used evidence collected by the judicial and police authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany as transfer of evidence is based on the bilateral agreement between former SFRY and the Federal Republic of Germany.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 91/04 23 March 2005, paragraph 44, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/05
The appellant’s complaints relating to a violation of his right to a fair trial due to the Supreme Court’s failure to answer all the allegations stated in the appeal, are ill-founded given that the Supreme Court’s judgment contains the sufficient reasons and explanations affirming the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal as well as the essential reasons on the basis of which the Supreme Court upheld the Count Court’s judgment.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 108/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/05
The appellant had the opportunity to exercise his employment rights in court proceedings in two jurisdictions. The courts carried out evidentiary proceedings and the appellant took part in those proceedings so he could present his position in respect of the decisive facts. The courts gave the clear and sufficient reasons for their decisions.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 351/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; the decertified police officer
There is no violation of the right to a fair trial in case where the public powers are exercised ex officio, as stipulated by the law, in order to corroborate evidence presented in court proceedings with regard to the question whether the former rulings constituting certain rights were rendered in accordance with the law, which embodies the special procedure dealing exclusively with the legal issues and not with the establishment of the facts.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 556/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 69/05; administrative proceedings, the determination of the right to family disability allowance; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
There is no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention in case where the ordinary courts in the relevant case, while deciding on a motion of immunity, establish that the disputed statement of the holder of immunity, in abstracto, exceeds the framework of activities for which he was granted immunity under the positive legal regulations.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 963/05 of 22 July 2005, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 57/06
The principles of the right to a fair trial relate also to the proceedings where the right to immunity is to be decided given that, in case where the request for immunity is dismissed and civil proceedings are continued, the issue of immunity cannot be raised any longer. In view of the above, the Constitutional Court holds that the appeal in this case is admissible as to the right under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, although the final decision has not yet been taken in civil proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 963/05 of 22 July 2005, paragraph 20, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 57/06;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 412/04 of 29 October 2004, paragraph 18; published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/05; the motion of immunity raised as a preliminary issue
The appellants’ right to a fair trial is not breached since they had the opportunity to present their allegations, facts and evidence in court proceedings in three jurisdictions and the court judgments are the result of the court’s impartial and independent efforts. In addition, the court’s interpretation of the legal provisions is not arbitrary.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 972/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 3/06;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1073/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 20 et seq., published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 94/05
The ordinary courts offered the complete and clear reasoning for their decisions in the relevant case where they decided that the legal requirements necessary to join the proceedings were not met and that the appellant’s allegation were ill-founded as to the violation of his right to a fair trial on that ground that the proceedings were conducted by the County Court in Banja Luka independent of the proceedings pending before the County Court in Doboj.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 934/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/06
The use of evidence collected at an earlier stage of the proceedings does not in itself constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial if the convicting judgment is not based solely on that evidence.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1064/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 94/05
The execution of a legally binding ruling ordering enforcement, rendered in administrative proceedings, is an integral part of the right to a fair trial.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 602/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraphs 31 and 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06; administrative proceedings, non-enforcement of the legally binding ruling, access to courts; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
In case where the charges were dropped as a result of the amnesty, there are no charges that could be “determined” within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention and, therefore, this provision cannot be applied.
• Decision No. U 24/01 of 28 September 2001, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 5/02; amnesty; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
A principle of ne bis in idem is not breached in case where the challenged convicting and previous acquitting judgment relate to the various loans taken at different times and in different loan amounts by the appellant in cooperation with a number of persons, although these actions were classified in both proceedings as the criminal offence of fraud.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 954/06 of 5 April 2007, paragraph 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 70/07; criminal proceedings, the criminal offence of fraud; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
The Constitutional Court considers that the principle ne bis in idem is not violated in the present case given that the previous judgments rendered in the proceedings in which the subsidiary prosecutors participated as suspects and the convicting judgments against the appellant do not relate to the same person. Consequently, the challenged judgments cannot have a res iudicata effect.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1828/06 of 28 March 2008, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/08; criminal proceedings, no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
Given that the guarantees of a fair trial, according to the case-law of the European Convention, apply to all registration procedures related to ownership, the Constitutional Court will give the same guarantees in proceedings conducted upon the appeals lodged with this court.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2706/06 of 14 October 2008, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/08; the case-law of the Constitutional Court has been changed as to the admissibility of appeals related to the registration of the ownership right and it has been concluded that such appeals are ratione materiae compatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court concludes that there is a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention in the case where the reasoning of the judgment rendered by the ordinary court includes an arbitrary interpretation and calls into question the right under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina to have civil rights and obligations determined by a court, as the enforcement of the judicial decision which is an integral part of the “trial”, has become illusory.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1472/07 of 22 October 2009, paragraph 50, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 23/10; payment of unpaid salaries, General Grammar School in Zavidovići
Pursuant to Article 241 of Civil Procedure Code, the Court of Review i.e. the Supreme Court examines the challenged judgment only in the part contested by the petition for review, within the limits of the reasons stated in the petition for review, having due regard, ex officio, to the application of substantive law and procedural errors concerning the litigation capacity of the parties and the representation. In view of the aforementioned, it follows that the Supreme Court was not obliged to examine whether the Cantonal Court exceeded the scope of the claim (ultra petitum) in the situation where the appellant failed to raise that issue in the petition for review.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 814/08 of 29 June 2010, paragraph 45, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 95/10; exceeding the scope of the claim; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
There is a violation of the right to legal certainty, as an element of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention in the situation where the court, which is also the court of last resort to decide certain issues, in the cases that are based on identical or similar factual and legal grounds, renders contradictory decisions lacking the reasoning in respect of a deviation from its previous case-law, while there is no mechanism ensuring consistency in decision-making.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1076/09 of 26 January 2012, paragraph 36, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 26/12; divergent case law; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court concludes that the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention is violated in the present case by the issuance of the HJPC’s decision in the disciplinary proceedings before the HJPC in which, due to inconsistent application of substantive law and imprecision of the legal norm, the appellants were denied the right to legal certainty as an element of the rule of law principle under Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the disciplinary proceedings which enjoy the guarantees of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as of Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4101/09 of 30 March 2012, paragraph 56, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/12; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established
The Constitutional Court holds that the present case does not involve an issue of retrospective application of the law but it concerns the application of a classic case of review/control, which is clearly stipulated and determined by the law (adequately accessible and published), based on the legal provision of a general nature and in effect at the time when the appellant carried out the actions related to the customs procedure and the appellant, given the facts of his case, had to be aware of the fact that the said provision was applicable to the case in question. Namely, taking into account that the procedure of review/control, as a legal mechanism provided in other laws, too, the Constitutional Court holds that the circumstances of the specific case do not disclose anything to indicate an arbitrary application of the law or that the specific actions produced legal uncertainty. Moreover, the Constitutional Court notes that “uncertainty” for the state as a whole would occur if the customs debts remained unpaid. In view of the above and since the Constitutional Court did not find an arbitrary application of the law in the present case, the Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as of Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2726/09 of 18 April 2012, paragraph 74 to 75, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 52/12; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH
