Given that the appeal filed against the first instance ruling was not timely, the appeal could not be taken into consideration for the reason that the requirement of exhaustion of all effective legal remedies available under law was not met.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 21/03 of 23 March 2004, paragraph 4;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1181/05 of 13 June 2006, paragraphs 7 and 8
As to the case where the ordinary courts rejected the lawsuit as untimely and did not take a decision on the merits of the case, there are no legal presumptions for consideration of the appeal because the appellant, as stipulated in the rules on exhaustion of legal remedies, did not arrive at decision that could be considered final and against which an appeal may be lodged with the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 92/03 of 17 March 2004, paragraph 8;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1247/05 of 20 December 2005, paragraphs 10 and 11;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1295/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 6;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1473/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 9
The appellant has failed to use a lawful opportunity to file a revision-appeal against the challenged judgment of the Cantonal Court as provided for under Article 26 of the Law on Non-Contentious Proceedings. Therefore, the appellant could have filed the revision- appeal and failed to do so. Accordingly, the requirement of exhaustion of legal remedies available under law for the appeal to be examined has not been met.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 29/03 of 19 April 2004, paragraph 12; non- contentious proceedings for determination of occupancy right holder;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1141/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 6
By failing to file a complaint within the ordinary minor offence proceedings, the appellant has failed to pursue effective legal remedies available under law.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 687/04 of 29 September 2004, paragraph 8
An appeal failed to meet the requirement of exhaustion of legal remedies available under law if the appellants did not comply with the time-limit for filing a complaint against the ruling of the first instance administrative body and if, after the adoption of the ruling of the second instance administrative body, they failed to initiate an administrative dispute. A lawsuit in administrative dispute against final rulings of administrative bodies shall be deemed to be an effective legal remedy and the said remedy must be exhausted prior to filing an appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 565/04 of 9 December 2004, paragraph 7
As to the instant case, the appellant’s motion for enforcement has been dismissed as unspecified, i.e. the formal requirements on legal remedies have not been met. Therefore, the challenged ruling cannot be considered a final decision and the appellant has failed to exhaust all legal remedies available under law.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 355/04 of 23 March 2005
The requirement of exhaustion of legal remedies is not to be deemed to have been met if the appellant has failed to initiate administrative dispute due to the fact that the decision on complaint was not adopted within a legally prescribed time limit.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 683/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 6
As to the case at hand, by following a wrong legal remedy instruction, the appellant filed a lawsuit with the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the referenced ruling as a final administrative act. However, an effective legal remedy available to the appellant was a lawsuit before the competent ordinary court for the purpose of initiating the employment dispute. The appellant should not bear the consequences of wrong legal remedy instruction which was given in the referenced ruling. However, the fact that such an instruction was given cannot justify establishing a subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for resolution of this specific case. As a rule, in the event of incorrect legal remedy instruction in decisions that may be challenged by some of the prescribed legal remedies, the interested parties shall be under the obligation to pursue the prescribed legal remedies and not those given in the wrong legal remedy instruction. Accordingly, the appellant was under the obligation to file a lawsuit before the competent ordinary court for the purpose of initiating the employment dispute.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 309/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraph 12
In the instant case the appellant challenges the ruling of the Federal Commission for Implementation of Article 143 of the Labor Law against which he could have filed a lawsuit before the competent municipal court as stated in the legal remedy’s instruction of the challenged ruling. However, this legal remedy was not used by the appellant and it appears that a requirement of exhaustion of available legal remedies has not been met and therefore the appeal could not be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 970/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraph 7
In the instant case the appellant challenges the ruling of the Administration against which it was possible to lodge a complaint to the second instance administrative body – to the Cantonal Ministry. Since the appellant did not arrive at a final decision that could be a subject of review by the Constitutional Court but lodged the appeal against the first instance ruling, it follows that the requirement of exhaustion of available legal remedies has not been met and thus the appeal could not be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1071/05 of 18 May 2005, paragraph 8;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1287/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 6
The appellants stated that they were deprived of the opportunity to repossess their real properties since those properties were devastated during the war and that they sustained both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It follows from the appeal and attached documents that the appellants have failed to initiate any proceedings for the purpose of being compensated for the damage, in accordance with positive legal regulations, in order to be able to arrive at decision that could be the challenged before the Constitutional Court. In other words, the appellants have failed to pursue the effective legal remedies available under law within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1303/05 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 4;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 965/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 5;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1254/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 4;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1633/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 6
The appellant’s request for protection of individual rights and freedoms in relation to the ruling of the Ministry dated 1 July 2005 has been rejected by the challenged ruling and an explanation was given that the appellant was granted judicial protection because she could have initiated the administrative dispute. So, as to the principle referred to in the preceding paragraph of this decision, the appellant failed to comply with formal requirements of this legal remedy and she did not reach a final decision that could be the subject of review by the Constitutional Court. In view of the aforesaid, as to this part of the appellant’s allegations, the conclusion was made that the appellant failed to pursue an effective legal remedy within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2111/05 of 16 January 2006, paragraph 8
As to the case at hand, the appellant failed to file a lawsuit against the ruling of Federal Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Administrative Disputes in order to arrive at a decision on the merits of the case for the purpose of protection of her rights. Therefore, given the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1475/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 5;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 898/05 of 12 Aril 2006, paragraph 5
In the instant case, the appellant complains about non-enforcement of the decision of the Commission for Implementation of Article 143 of the Labor Law. However, the appellant failed to file a motion for enforcement of this decision although he had a possibility to do so in accordance with Article 215 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. Therefore, given the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of all available legal remedies was not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1339/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 6;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1418/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 6
In case the appellants consider that they could have some financial claim from the ”Sarajevo osiguranje” dd Sarajevo due to the fact that they were not paid out their earned dividends, they had a possibility to initiate the relevant court proceedings and get paid. However, they failed to initiate the said proceedings. Therefore, since the requirement of exhaustion of all available legal remedies was not met, the appeal cannot be examined.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1351/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 6;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1885/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 9
The proceedings in the appellant’s case were not concluded since the competent body failed to take a decision on his request. However, the appellant failed to lodge a complaint with the competent second instance body as if his request was dismissed although he had this possibility as per Article 216, paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings of the Federation of BiH. Therefore, given that the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1101/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 6
In the case where the appellant did not complain against the rulings on determination and extension of prison sentence and thus failed to pursue an available effective legal remedy although he was instructed to do so, it follows that the requirement of exhaustion of legal remedies available under law has not been met.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 263/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 17, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 49/06;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1346/05 of 13 July 2005, paragraph 9
The appellants have stated that they did not file any lawsuit for protection of their constitutional right to property. Given the fact that Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court provides that the Constitutional Court may consider appeals only if all effective legal remedies available under law have been exhausted in regards to the decision challenged by the appeal, it follows that a necessary requirement for making an assessment whether someone’s constitutional rights have been violated is the existence of judgment or decision of competent bodies, i.e. the courts. In the instant case the appellants failed to initiate either civil or administrative proceedings before the competent bodies for the purpose of establishing violation of their ownership rights. Therefore, the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met in order for the appeal to be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1139/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraphs 5 and 6
Given the fact that under the Law on Movement and Stay of Aliens and Asylum it is not explicitly stated that an administrative proceedings cannot be initiated against the second instance ruling whereby the appellant’s application for temporary stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina was dismissed, it follows that the appellant has failed to pursue all legal remedies available under law prior to filing her appeal with the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 893/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 7
The appellant has failed to present any evidence in order to justify her allegations that she filed a lawsuit before the competent court against the Decision of the Employer’s Complaints Commission and that in this way she tried to arrive at a decision on the merits of the case for the purpose of protecting her rights in accordance with Article 83 of the Law on Basic Employment Rights. Therefore, given the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 911/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraphs 6 and 7
In the instant case the appellant failed to pursue an effective legal remedy by failing to lodge a complaint before the County Court against the challenged ruling of the Basic Court. Thus, the appellant has failed to pursue all legal remedies available under law. Given the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met, the appeal cannot be examined.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1142/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 6;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1217/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 7;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1227/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 13;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1480/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 13
It is apparent that under the circumstances of this case the appellant’s claim was relating to legal and procedural issues concerning the administrative proceedings before ordinary courts. Under such kind of circumstance the appellant could have submitted his case to the competent administrative body and could have justified the fact that it was not possible to file a request before the competent body that has a subject matter jurisdiction over the relevant case. Therefore, the requirement of exhaustion of all available legal remedies was not met for merits of the appeal to be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1153/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 15;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1772/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 8
In the instant case, the appellant failed to present any evidence to prove that he submitted the complaint to the Supervisor of the Penitentiary and Correction Facility in Foča or to the Ministry of Justice claiming violation of his rights. Therefore, the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met for appeal to be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1237/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 6;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1719/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraphs 22 and 23
Given the fact that the appellant has failed to lodge a complaint due to the failure of the Cantonal Commission for Implementation of Article 143 of the Labor Law to adopt a relevant decision, her appeal lodged with the Constitutional Court must be rejected as inadmissible for the reason that the requirement of exhaustion all legal remedies available under law was not met.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1354/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 8
As to the instant case, the appellant has failed to initiate any proceedings before the Federal Institution for Pension-Disability Insurance in accordance with valid regulations for the purpose of determination of the amount of family pension and compensation for unpaid pensions with cash instead of certificates. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to seek adoption of the decision in which way she would have exhausted all legal remedies and thus arrived at a final decision on the merits, which could have been the subject of review by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, given the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2146/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 4
In the instant case the appellants did not arrive at a final decision on the merits which could be the subject of review by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, by filing a lawsuit before the Cantonal Court against the defendant that has no legal standing, the appellants have failed to meet the requirement of exhaustion of effective legal remedies and they only formally filed a lawsuit based on which the ordinary courts could not take a decision on the merits of the case since the said lawsuit has failed to meet the formal requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies. Therefore, given the fact that the requirement of exhaustion of all available legal remedies is not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1256/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 9
In the proceedings of enforcement of legally binding judgment, the appellant - as a party seeking the enforcement - had an opportunity to request the Municipal Court to adopt a ruling whereby the defendants would be imposed a financial sanction due to failure to enforce the judgment and thus they will be obliged to enforce the judgment, i.e. reinstate the appellant to his work position. Next, as to the appellant’s request submitted to the Constitutional Court for recognition of his length of service, the appellant had an opportunity, within the meaning of Article 53 of the Civil Procedure Code, to initiate a civil proceedings against the employer who would be obliged to pay the employment related contributions and thus make it possible for the appellant to arrive at a final decision that could be the subject of review by the Constitutional Court. Thus, the appellant has failed to exhaust all effective legal remedies available under law within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, one of the basic formal requirements was not met for appeal to be considered before the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1338/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraphs 7 and 9;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1388/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 4
By failing to lodge a timely complaint before the competent administrative body, the appellant has failed to pursue all effective legal remedies and only formally lodged his complaint after the prescribed time limit. Therefore, neither the administrative nor judicial bodies could take a decision on the merits of the case since a formal requirement of exhaustion of relevant legal remedy was not met.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1842/05 of 13 June 2006, paragraph 6
In the instant case the appellant could have filed a lawsuit with the competent ordinary court and, in the civil proceedings, she could have challenged theAgreement on Settlement of Debt that she concluded with the RS Government. In other words, she could have requested the termination of the mentioned agreement since she had unwillingly given her statement on waiving her right to the interest rate, in other words she had a false belief about the said agreement and gave the mentioned statement by coercion and deceit and after that she could have sought payment of legally prescribed default interest.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2040/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 7
There is no evidence in the case-file of the Constitutional Court that the appellant initiated civil proceedings before the competent court for the purpose of repossession of movables which disappeared from her apartment. Accordingly, since the appellant has failed to initiate the civil proceedings against the defendant for the purpose of settlement of her claims, as advised by the criminal court, the Constitutional Court concludes that the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met in relation to 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 No. AP 2057/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 10
The appellant has failed to seek the renewal of administrative proceedings in which a final and challenged first instance ruling was adopted. That would have resulted in a new decision proving that a motion had been filed. However, as the requirement of exhaustion of all legal remedies available under law was not met, the appeal cannot be considered.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2177/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 11
As to the instant case, the Constitutional Court observes that by the challenged judgment the Municipal Court imposed the two-year prison sentence on the appellant and that prison sentence is regulated by the guilty plea agreement between the appellant and Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office. Then, by application of Article 54 of the F BiH Criminal Code, which Article 56 paragraph 1 of F BiH Criminal Code points to, the court pronounced a single prison sentence for the period of two years and two months. Since the single prison sentence exceeded the frame of the sanction envisaged by the agreement which the court accepted, the appellant had a right to lodge the complaint against the pronounced single sentence and challenge the fact that the court had failed to include into that sentence the previously pronounced prison sentence of one year and two months imposed in the judgment of the Municipal Court no. 07-58-K-021427-07-K of 4 February 2008 and also challenge the correctness of the revocation of the conditional sentence imposed in the judgment of that court no. K-009723/06 of 20 June 2006. Those are the issues raised in the appeal. During that proceeding the appellant would challenge the application of other provisions of the FBiH Criminal Code (Article 56) and not the application of the provisions of the FBiH Criminal Procedure Code that regulates the mechanism of “admission of guilt”, in respect of which, according to the explicit law provision of Article 246 paragraph 4 item c) of the FBiH Criminal Procedure Code, and it follows that an appeal may not be filed against the pronounced criminal sanction.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3246/08 of 29 June 2011, paragraph 13
The Constitutional Court recalls that the right to have a decision adopted within a reasonable time constitutes only one of the aspects of the right to a fair trial, which guarantees to the appellants, even without meeting other conditions necessary for the admissibility of the appeal within the meaning of Article 18 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (decision on merits, time limit, exhaustion of legal remedies etc.), that they may lodge an appeal during the course of the proceedings before ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to provide for the Constitutional Court to consider an appeal only regarding the length of the proceeding in order to be able to make it possible, by means of its decision, for the appellants to get the final decision within reasonable time, which is the basic purpose and ultimate goal of every court proceeding. Therefore, in a situation where the appellant did not raise an objection thus losing a possibility to obtain the final decision in the respective enforcement procedure, it would be illusory to expect that the Constitutional Court would only afford protection concerning this aspect of the right to a fair trial despite the fact that the appellant, due to the failure to exhaust the legal remedy, would not meet the first and basic condition of admissibility, which is the final decision. Through such conduct the Constitutional Court would bring down this aspect of the right to a fair trial to a mere formalism, that is to say it would render meaningless the mechanism which makes it possible for the Constitutional Court to react during the course of the proceeding, i.e. to order ordinary courts to adopt a decision. Contrary interpretation of the guarantees afforded by this article would lead to a situation where ordinary courts would have a whole series of court proceedings wherein the appellants do not want to obtain a final decision at all, but will, because of the possibility afforded by the right to have a decision adopted within a reasonable time as the segment of 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, institute and persist in having such proceedings hoping to be able to get, due to possible violation of this right, the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in accordance with Article 74 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 4265/14 of 19 April 2017, paragraph 17; reasonable time limit, enforcement procedure
