The Constitutional Court holds that the courts applied the law which was more lenient for the appellant and that in the present case there is no violation of the appellant’s rights under Article 7 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 114/02 of 27 October 2004, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 60/04; the issue of the application of a more lenient law to the criminal act of abuse of office
The allegation of the appellant that the proceedings were conducted and that he was convicted of “a continued criminal offence”, which as such was not prescribed in the Criminal Code, is ill-founded, as such application of the law is favorable for the accused. Had not such mechanism been in place, the accused would have been tried for each criminal offense committed and separate sentences pronounced for each of the offenses. Thus, accordingly, by applying provisions on concurrence of criminal offenses he would be given a single sentence, which is undoubtedly less favorable for the appellant than when applying the mechanism of extended criminal offence, and when tried and determining a sentence prescribed for one offense.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 86/05 of 13 October 2005, paragraphs 59 and 60, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06
There is no violation of Article 7 of the European Convention, because the criminal offense of trafficking in humans is a permanent criminal offense, which perpetration had started before the entry into force of the new Criminal Code of BiH prescribing that offense, which perpetration and consequences continued even after the entry into force of that law.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 3388/06 of 17 March 2009, paragraph 48, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50/09; the confiscation of property gain acquired through criminal offense; there is no violation of Article 7 of the European Convention
The Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of Article 7(1) of the European Convention when the appellants were found guilty of a continued criminal offense of tax evasion, which was as such first and foremost prescribed by an Entity law and subsequently by a BiH law, thus in the present case the BiH law was applied since the appellants continued to perpetrate the criminal offense even after the entry into force of the BiH law, and could assume that the continuation of their behavior after the entry into force of the BiH law (on 1 March 2003) carried a risk for them to be convicted of a continued criminal offense under the provisions of the law that were in force at the time they committed the last action of perpetration. Also, there is no violation of Article 7(1) of the European Convention when the ordinary courts established that the appellants were responsible for criminal actions fulfilling the elements of the essence of criminal offenses of tax evasion and abuse of office or authority, and the mentioned criminal offenses were “prescribed by law” at the time of the perpetration and the appellants could understand from the contents of the provisions which criminal actions and omissions might make them criminally liable.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3133/11 of 27 March 2015, paragraph 59, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 34/15; criminal proceedings; continued criminal offense; there is no violation of Article 7 of the European Convention
The appellant’s constitutional right under Article 7 (1) of the European Convention was violated because in the specific case, the application of the Criminal Code rejecting the appellant’s request for replacement of imprisonment (imposed on him for a criminal offense under the pre-existing CC) with a fine was detrimental to the appellant and affected the “punishment” itself, not its execution.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1498/18 of 23 April 2018, paragraph 34; criminal proceedings, replacement of imprisonment with a fine; violation of Article 7 of the European Convention
There is a violation of the appellant’s constitutional right under Article II(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 7(1) of the European Convention, where the RS Criminal Code was applied to the detriment of the appellant in respect of the imposition of a sanction, given that the former Criminal Code provided for the possibility of a fine or imprisonment for the criminal offense in question, and that it contained provisions that a sentence of imprisonment of up to six months could be replaced by a fine.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1/18 of 17 December 2018, paragraph 43, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2/20; criminal proceedings, possibility of replacement of imprisonment with a fine, a violation of Article 7 of the European Convention established
