The Constitutional Court concludes that the impugned provisions of the Law Amending the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens of BiH (Article 2, part amending Article 8, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and Article 3, part amending Article 8a, paragraph 1), which prescribe the procedure for checking the fulfilment of the requirements to be met by returnees as well as by all other citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who register their place of residence, are not in violation of the returnees’ right to liberty of movement and residence under Article II(3)(m) of the Constitution of BiH. In addition, the impugned provisions of the Law Amending the Law on Permanent and Temporary Residence of Citizens of BiH are not in violation of the right not to be discriminated against under Article II(4) of the Constitution of BiH in conjunction with Article II(3)(m) and Article II(5) of the Constitution of BiH, as the legislator, by regulating the right to permanent residence and by checking the registered permanent residence addresses in such a manner, does not call into question the right of any citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina freely to choose his/her place of residence nor does it restrict his/her right to freedom of movement and return to his/her pre-war property in BiH.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 5/15 of 26 November 2015 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 100/15

The Constitutional Court concludes that Article 3(b) of the Law on Holidays of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska, 43/07) is inconsistent with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Article 2(a) and (c) of the ICERD and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 3/13 of 26 November 2015 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 100/15

The Constitutional Court concludes that the impugned provisions (Article 10) of the Rulebook Amending the Rulebook on Criteria, Procedure and Method of Allocation of International Permits for Cargo Transport to Domestic Carriers (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 79/09) are inconsistent with Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, where the executive branch, by establishing the criteria to be met by a carrier to operate as an international carrier, exceeded the bounds of its legal authority and the bounds of international rules.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 28/14 of 26 November 2015 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 100/15

Article 37(4) of the Law on Transport by Taxi is consistent with Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention, as it does not place anyone in a privileged position or in a subordinate position as regards the fulfilment of the requirements for providing transportation services by taxi.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 6/15 of 21 January 2016, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12/16

The Law on Mandatory Insurances (the Official Gazette of RS, 82/15) is not in contravention of the provisions of Article I(2), I(4), III(3)(b) and III(5)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 11/15 of 6 April 2016, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 33/16

The Constitutional Court concludes that the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska, in the part reading “the language of Bosniac peoples”, is a neutral provision which does not determine the name of the language but contains the constitutional right of the Bosniac constituent peoples, as well as of other constituent peoples and Others who are not declaring themselves as such, to name the language they speak by the name of their choice, which is in compliance with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and any contrary conduct in practice would lead to the violation of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 7/15 of 26 May 2016, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 51/16

The Constitutional Court finds that the part of Subchapter B, Article 10.12 (2) reading: each of the constituent peoples shall be allocated one seat in every canton and the provisions of Chapter 20 – Transitional and Final Provisions of Article 20.16 A paragraph 2 items a-j of the Election Law are not in conformity with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the mentioned provisions manifestly imply that the right to participate in democratic decision-making exercised through legitimate political representation will not be based on democratic election of delegates to the House of Peoples of the Federation of Bosnia and Hercegovina by the constituent people that is represented and whose interests are represented by those delegates. Therefore, the aforesaid is in contravention of the principle of constituent status of peoples, i.e. the principle of equality of all constituent peoples. The Constitutional Court holds that the remaining part of the provisions of the Subchapter B, Articles 10.10 and 10.12, and Articles 10.15 and 10.16 of the Election Law are consistent with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 23/14 of 1 December 2016, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1/17

The Constitutional Court concludes that the Decision on Referendum, No. 02/1-02- 894/16 of 15 July 2016, is not compatible with Article I(2) and Article VI(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since that decision determined the referendum issue on which there is a final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an institution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and such decision must be respected by all public authorities and institutions. Considering this, the Constitutional Court concludes that the results of the referendum held based on the Decision to Call a Referendum which is inconsistent with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and held contrary to the Decision on Interim Measure no. U 10/16 of 17 September 2016, must be annulled.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 10/16 of 1 December 2016, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 94/16

The Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged laws have been adopted in compliance with Article II(1) in conjunction with Article II(2) and II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5(1)(c) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Constitutional Court notes that there were no constitutional and legal obstacles, or the obstacles stipulated by the Rules of Procedure to adopt the challenged laws at the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the FBiH. Furthermore, the Serb People Caucus was not prevented from exercising the right to initiate the mechanism for the protection of vital national interest. Thus, the Serb People Caucus was not prevented from equal enjoyment of political rights, nor was the privileged position given to any of the constituent peoples or “Others” at the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the FBiH, i.e. there is no system of government which reserves all public offices only to members of certain groups.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 17/16 of 19 January 2017, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18/17; all laws and other general acts passed by the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the FBiH after the 2014 elections were challenged for the reason that following the elections held in 2014 the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the FBiH was not constituted as prescribed by the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 84(2), (3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code are in contravention of Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to the non-existence of clear distinction between granting immunity and absolute discretionary power to grant immunity, namely, because of imprecision and vagueness the challenged provisions themselves are contrary to the principle of the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provision of Article 117(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code is contrary to Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina because the legislator failed to ensure that the interference with this right would take place to such an extent that is strictly necessary for the preservation of democratic institutions, i.e. it failed to ensure the proportion between the severity of interference with the right to privacy and the legitimate goal sought to be achieved through the application of that special measure.

Bearing in mind that the legislator failed to make any distinction whatsoever between criminal offenses to which the extension of special investigative measures should not apply, and that the presumption for particularly important reasons is imprecisely set and may not serve as a benchmark for that distinction, the Constitutional Court finds that the challenged provisions of Article 118(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the part relating to the extension of special investigative measures are not in conformity with Article of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in connection with Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 225(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are in contravention of Articles I(2) and II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they do not meet the principles of the rule of law, i.e. the legislator failed to be mindful of the rights of suspects and the protection of the rights of damaged persons, thereby jeopardizing the fairness in an investigative procedure.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 226(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code are in contravention of Article I(2) of the Constitution, as the establishment of unconstitutionality of the provision of Article 225(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the lack of a mechanism protecting the rights of suspects and damaged persons during the investigation would not lead to genuine protection of their rights, if such protection would not apply at the same time to the stage from the completion of investigation to the issuance of indictment.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 84(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code are not contrary to Articles I(2) and II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the applicant fails to provide a single allegation to reason why she held that these challenged provisions are unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 119(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code are consistent with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention, as the legislator ensured that the interference with an individual’s right would be subjected to an effective supervision.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 216(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are not in contravention of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 and Article 13 of the European Convention, as the legislator “described” the order on conduct of an investigation as an internal and preparatory act of the prosecutor and the very order on conduct of an investigation, within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code, has no effects on a suspect when it comes to making restrictions on some of his/her rights.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 5/16 of 1 June 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 49/17; review of constitutionality of the number of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Article 78 (3)(4)(5) of the Law on the Intelligence-Security Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not in compliance with the provisions of Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention for the reason that as regards the extension of the warrant, the scope of discretion granted to the President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the judge authorised by him is not clearly prescribed since his/her discretion implies unlimited power when he/she interprets vague terms such as “in justified cases” and “if s/he is satisfied that a warrant continues to be required”, and where maximal duration of these measures exclusively depends on the discretionary decision of the President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the judge authorised by him. Therefore, it follows that those provisions do not guarantee appropriate protection from arbitrary interference with individual constitutional rights. Also, the challenged provisions do not ensure that the measures of surveillance and search are not ordered haphazardly, irregularly or without due and proper consideration.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 21/16 of 1 June 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/17

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provision of Article 114(3) of the Law on Police Officials is inconsistent with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina for being imprecise and vague and, as such, it allows arbitrary interpretation and application and it is therefore in contravention of the rule of law principle.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 6/16 of 6 June 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 57/17

The Constitutional Court holds that the challenged Law (Law declaring 1 March the Independence Day of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) does not put any of the constituent peoples in a different position, including the Serb people when compared to two other constituent peoples. Therefore, the Constitutional Court does not hold that the challenged Law, which is related to 1 March as the Independence Day, places Serbs in a subordinated and discriminatory position when compared to Croats and Bosniacs as two other constituent peoples.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged Law is not in violation of the part of the Preamble of the Constitution reading as follows: Bosniacs, Croats, and Serbs, as constituent peoples (along with Others), and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina hereby determine the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article I(2) and Article II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 14 of the European Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention and Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the International Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 18/16 of 6 July 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 57/17

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Law Declaring November 25 as Statehood Day of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/95) are not inconsistent with Article II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Article 2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 22/16 of 6 July 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 57/17

The Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged Article 3.15 of the Election Law (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 23/01, 7/02, 9/02, 25/02, 4/04, 20/04, 25/05, 52/05, 65/05, 77/05, 11/06,24/06, 32/10, 18/13, 7/14 and 31/16) is compatible with Articles I(2), II(1), II(2), II(3), II(4) and II(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Articles 14 and 17 of the European Convention, Articles 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention, and Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 6/17 of 28 September 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76/17

The Constitutional Court concludes that an absolute prohibition on the Bosnia and Herzegovina Border Police’ police officers to wear a beard while wearing their police uniform is in violation of the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of religion safeguarded by Article II(3)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention, as the impugned measure does not purse the general objectives set forth in Article 8(2) and Article 9(2) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 8/17 of 30 November 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 90/17; request for review of the constitutionality of Article 1(1)(7) of the Rulebook Amending the Rulebook on Wearing Uniforms in part reading “when in uniform, police officers are not allowed to have a beard”.

The Constitutional Court concludes that the Law on Amendments to the Law on Excise Tax in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 91/17), Law on Amendments and Supplement to the Law on Payments into the Single Account and Distribution of Revenues (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 91/17) and Law on Amendments to the Law on Indirect Taxation System in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 91/17) are in conformity with Articles I(2), IV and V(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 5/18 of 15 February 2018 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20/18

The Constitutional Court concludes that the provisions of Articles 63, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 76 of the Law on Land Registry of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are in accordance with 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 right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention, the right to an effective legal remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention in conjunction with the right to a fair trial and the right to property, and the right not to be discriminated against under Article II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 14 of the European Convention in conjunction with the right to a fair trial and the right to property.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 7/18 of 31 May 2018 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 47/18

The Constitutional Court concludes that Article 20(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the challenged part that reads: “Judicial Associates as well as investigators working for the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the authorization of the Prosecutor shall also be considered as authorized officials”, is compatible with the rule of law principle under Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 15/18 of 29 November 2018 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 94/18

The provisions of Article 48 and Article 48a of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Agricultural Cooperatives are not in violation of the right to property of the agricultural cooperatives as the interference has been in accordance with the law, it has pursued a legitimate aim, an excessive burden has not been placed on the agricultural cooperatives when a relationship of proportionality was achieved between the need to protect the right of the cooperatives on the one hand and legitimate interests of community on the other hand.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 21/18 of 31 January 2019 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12/19; transformation of socially- owned agricultural land with existing right of use, management and disposal into state-owned property.

Article 2(1) of the Law on the Day of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of Republika Srpska, 113/16) is in contravention of Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article II(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Article 1(1) and Article 2(a) and (c) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention and Article VI(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 2/18 of 28 March 2019 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/19

The provision of Article 395(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republika Srpska, in the part related to the Attorney’s Office, and the provision of Article 395 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are compatible with Article I(2) and I(4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and with 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 and the right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 16/18 of 28 March 2019 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/19

The Constitutional Court finds that the impugned provision [Article 9(7) of the Law on Road Transport, the Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska No. 47/17] means that the licenses issued in accordance with the Law on International and Inter-Entity Road Transport by the Ministry of Transport and Communications of Bosnia and Herzegovina replace the licenses issued in accordance with the Law on Road Transport of Republika Srpska by the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republika Srpska, contrary to the applicants’ interpretation that “licenses issued by the RS Ministry replace licenses issued by the State Ministry, Ministry of Communications and Transport of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Therefore, the impugned provision is compatible with Article III(1)(h) and (i) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which determines the responsibilities of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 5/19 of 4 October 2019, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 74/19

The Constitutional Court concludes that the impugned provision of Article 11(2) of the RS Constitution, which exceptionally prescribes the death penalty for the most serious crimes, is not in accordance with Article II(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention, banning the death penalty in all circumstances, which was ratified by Bosnia and Herzegovina and constitutes a legally binding act for all levels of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Entity of Republika Srpska.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 7/19 of 4 October 2019, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 73/19