The Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Dayton Peace Agreement in relation to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the reason that the Constitutional Court has been established according to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina with an exclusive task to uphold this Constitution.
• Decision No. U 1/03 of 25 July, paragraph 10, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/03
Given that that the right to immunity is not arising from the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the issue of immunity of public office holders in the legislative and executive Entities’ bodies and on their administrative units is not an issue falling within the scope of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision No. U 2/03 of 26 September 2003, paragraph 7, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/03
Given the fact that the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to take a decision on the issue whether the provisions of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton are compatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is purposeless to consider the issue concerning the authorization of the President of the Municipal Assembly of the West Herzegovina Canton to submit such a request.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 5/03 of 25 July 2003, paragraph 7, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/03
The Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to take a decision on the issue whether the provisions of the Cantonal Constitution are compatible with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision No. U 5/03 of 25 July 2003, paragraph 6, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/03
In the present case, the applicant challenges the constitutionality of the general acts (Decisions on the Commission to Preserve National Monuments, Rule Book on the Activities of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments as Regards International Cooperation, Rules of Procedure for the Work of the Commission to Preserve National Monuments, Criteria to Designate the Properties as National Monuments and Decision on the Provisional List of National Monuments) pursuant to Article III(5)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Articles 5, 7 and 9 of Annex 8 to the General Framework Agreement. In this connection, the Constitutional Court recalls that its primary task, pursuant to Article VI(3) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is to uphold this Constitution, and that it is more closely specified in Article VI(3)(a) line 2 that the Constitutional Court has the competence to examine whether any provision of an Entity’s constitution or law is consistent with this Constitution. Therefore, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is given the competence, by the Constitution, to review the constitutionality with regard to the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, while the Constitutional Court is not given the competence to review the constitutionality relating to the other annexes to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision No. U 8/05 of 26 May 2003, paragraph 13, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06
The Constitutional Court asserts that the enforcement of the judgment of Karanović vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Application No. 39462/03 of 20 December 2007) is international legal obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. System of the supervision of enforcement of judgments of the European Court for Human Rights, also including possible adoption of the measures in the event of failure to enforce those judgments is under full discretion of the Council of Europe. For that reason, the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to establish whether the judgment was enforced or order certain public legal subject in Bosnia and Herzegovina to enforce obligations referred to in this judgment.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 12/08 of 28 March 2009, paragraph 9
The Constitutional Court is not in charge of review of the constitutionality of the Resolution on Non-Recognition of Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo and Metohija and position of the Republika Srpska as this issue involves an act which represents a type of political proclamation that is not legally binding.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 6/08 of 30 January 2009, paragraph 10
Decision granting consent to the payment schedule for debt settlement by issuing bonds for verified old foreign currency savings accounts), and the Decision on cash payments of verified claims arising from the old foreign currency savings accounts by issuing bonds planned for 2008 and Decree Amending the Decree on Procedure for Verification of the Claims and Cash Payables Arising from the Old Foreign Currency Savings Deposits in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Constitutional Court finds that the challenged by-laws of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Government are the enforcement regulations facilitating the implementation of the Law on Settlement of Debts and the Decisions of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers by which the schedule for payment of liabilities and cash payments for 2008 are established as well as a new time limit for verification of the claims. The Constitutional Court concludes that the present case does not relate to the general acts which, pursuant to Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, may be subject to review by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court does not see any reason for which the challenged acts would give rise to the issue of violation of human rights and freedoms. Therefore, the Constitutional Court, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, concludes that it is not competent review the constitutionality of the challenged acts within the meaning of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 1/09 of 29 May 2009, paragraph 15, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 73/09
The Constitutional Court considers that, in the present case, the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of RS is not an act, whose review of compatibility with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina falls under jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court pursuant to the provisions of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 7/10 of 26 November 2010, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/11
In the present case the Constitutional Court holds that this is obviously not the case of the request for review of consistency of any of the laws on the validity of which depends the decision of an ordinary court but of the request for evaluation of the actions of the ordinary court’s judge in the conduct and application of the rules of the judicial proceedings. The Constitutional Court concludes that in this kind of proceedings, it is not competent to take a decision.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 8/11 of 15 July 2011, paragraph 6
Having regard to the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court holds that the Rules of the Constitutional Court which are provided for by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an act the issuance of which is in the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court, have a specific constitutional nature which is the result of need and intention to fully preserve and protect the autonomy and independence of the Constitutional Court. Having regard to such constitutional nature of this act, and the fact that that act has its source directly in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court holds that the rules of court could be considered a sui generis law in terms of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, having regard to the clearly prescribed exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court to pass the rules of court, the Constitutional Court holds that in respect to that issue no “dispute” could arise between the two Entities or Bosnia and Herzegovina and one or both of its entities and between the Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina the constitutionality of which the Constitutional Court would have the jurisdiction to evaluate in terms of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 7/13 of 27 September 2013, paragraph 11, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 84/13
Request for review of the constitutionality of Article 1 and Article 2 of the Amendments to the Constitution of Posavina Canton; Article 9 of the Statute of the Municipality of Cazin; Article 9 of the Statute of the Municipality of Ključ; Article 8 of the Statute of the Municipality of Zenica; Article 9 of the Statute of the Municipality of Posušje; Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision on the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Municipality of Bosanska Krupa; Article 1 of the Decision to Adopt a Logo of the Municipality of Čelić, No. 01-101/95 of 28 October 1995; Article 2 of the Decision on the Coat of Arms of the Municipality of Breza; Article 2 of the Decision on Coat of Arms and Flag of the Municipality of Visoko; Article 3 of the Decision on Coat of Arms and Flag of the Municipality of Vogošća, No. 01-02-2387/02 of 24 September 2002; Article 1 of the Decision on Adoption of the Coat of Arms and Flag of the Municipality of Kupres.
The Constitutional Court considers that the compliance with the principle of the constituent peoples and principle of non-discrimination with regards to the manner of stipulation of symbols of the administrative and local units, as a matter which is under exclusive of jurisdiction of the Entities, primarily raises the issue of conformity of the acts containing the provisions about this matter with the Entity constitution and final authority regarding this matter is the Entity constitutional court. Also, bearing in mind the relevant case-law of the Entity courts regarding the same factual and legal issue, more precisely the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court considers that there are no circumstances indicating that the Entity constitutional courts, more precisely the Constitutional Court of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, interprets and applies the Entity constitutions contrary to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the Constitutional Court concluded that it has no jurisdiction to take a decision within the meaning of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 28/13 of 26 March 2015, paragraph 11, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 33/15
The Constitutional Court is not competent for review of the constitutionality of the Decision on the Adoption of Unified Data Processing Program for the Census of the Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013, no. 11-43- 2-12-601-2/16 of 18 May 2016, and the Data Processing Unified Programme for the Census of the Population, Households and Dwellings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2013 (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/16 of 24 May 2016). The challenged acts as methodological documents regulating the issue which requires expert and scientific methods of work, in respect of which the Agency enjoys technical autonomy, obviously do not raise an issue of violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms safeguarded by the European Convention, which would be the issue over which the Constitutional Court would have jurisdiction in accordance with the case-law cited in the present Decision.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 7/16 of 19 January 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 10/17
A conclusion could be reached that the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, based on its jurisdiction under Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, cannot examine whether the laws passed by cantonal assemblies are consistent with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or whether such laws are consistent with the requirements and standards of laws passed at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Court may examine, only based on the jurisdiction under Article VI(3)(c)of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whether laws passed by cantonal assemblies are “compatible with this Constitution” or “with the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Namely, the Constitutional Court recalls that, pursuant to Article VI(3)(c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it has jurisdiction over issues referred to it by any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning whether a law, on whose validity its decision depends, is compatible with this Constitution, with the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols, or with the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina; or concerning the existence of or the scope of a general rule of public international law pertinent to the court’s decision.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 19/16 of 31 March 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 35/17
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 4/17 of 28 September 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76/17
In the present case, the Constitutional Court sees not a single reason as to why the challenged act (Rulebook on Licensing and Driver Qualification Card Requirements (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/14) would raise serious issues of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms or the issue concerning which it has the competence solely to act. Therefore, the Constitutional Court, considering the mentioned specific circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind its hitherto jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of its competence, concludes that it has no competence to decide on the review of constitutionality and legality of the act within the meaning of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 5/17 of 28 September 2017 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76/17
The Constitutional Court notes that the compliance with the principle of the constituent status of peoples and principle of non-discrimination as an issue falling also under the scope of responsibilities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina raises an issue of compatibility of the acts containing the provisions on this issue with the Constitution of the Entity, in respect of which the Constitutional Court of the Entity is the final authority. Taking into account the relevant case-law of the Entity’s Constitutional Court, namely the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its judgement of 16 May 2018, the Constitutional Court holds that there are no circumstances indicating that the Constitutional Court of the Entity, namely the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina interprets and applies the Constitution of the Entity contrary to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concludes that it is not competent to take a decision within the meaning of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the present case.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 8/18 of 27 September 2018 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 76/18, review of constitutionality of the Constitution of Cantons
Taking into account the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court holds that the impugned Instruction on Amendments is an implementing regulation, passed by the Central Election Commission (“the CEC”) in order to implement the Election Law in the process of administering indirect elections for the bodies of authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which determined the preliminary number of delegates to the House of Peoples to be elected from cantonal assemblies. Accordingly, and taking into account the fact that it concerns a temporary provision, the Constitutional Court concludes that in the present case it is not about a general act the constitutionality of which could by reviewed by the Constitutional Court within the meaning of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, taking into account the content of the request in the case at hand and Article 31 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court does not find any reason why the impugned implementing act of the CEC would raise an issue of violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Constitutional Court concludes, taking into account the mentioned circumstances and in particular the jurisprudence related to interpretation of its jurisdiction, that it is not competent to decide on the review of constitutionality of the impugned act of the CEC within the meaning of Article VI(3)(a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 24/18 of 31 January 2019 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 16/19
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that it is a competence of the ordinary courts to check whether an administrative regulation – as the instructions of the Central Election Commission (“the CEC”) – is in conformity with the Election Law and the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, having adhered to the views expressed in decision no. U 24/18, the Constitutional Court holds that the applicant’s arguments were not capable of calling into question the view which the Constitutional Court expressed in its decision U 24/18, which may (also) be applied to the allegations expressed in the present request for review of constitutionality.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 3/19 of 28 March 2019 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30/19
