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 of the appellant, the Zenica-Doboj Canton and the Sarajevo Canton, where the ordinary courts took into account all the relevant circumstances of the specific cases and established the relevant facts and provided the clear and precise reasons why the relevant provisions of the 2000 Branch Collective Agreement, which was still in effect and more favourable to the employees, and not the provisions of the General Collective Agreement of 8 September 2005, had to be applied to the plaintiffs’ claims arising out of employment after 8 September 2005.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3417/08 of 15 May 2012, paragraph 72, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 44/12; the rights arising out of employment; application of the Branch Collective Agreement and General Collective Agreement; no violation of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged decisions rendered by the ordinary courts are in violation of the appellant’s 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 conjunction with the rule of law principle under Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the case where the legal provision stipulating a replacement for prison sentence is unclear and is interpreted and applied differently and the courts failed to interpret and to apply it in favour of the party in question.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2809/12 of 24 May 2013, paragraph 42, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/13; prison sentence converted into a fine; 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 present case concerns a violation of the appellant’s right under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention where the Supreme Court failed to provide a well-substantiated answer as to why the principle reformatio in peius was not violated in the situation where the indictment was amended by adding certain elements to the factual description which amount to the criminal offence the appellant was charged with, while the original indictment, based on which the first instance judgment had been rendered and then quashed upon an appeal filed by the defence counsel, had not contained the same elements in the factual description thereof.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1165/10 of 22 October 2013, paragraph 44, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88/13; criminal proceedings; 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 paragraphs 1 and 3(d) of the European Convention is violated where the challenged judgment, finding the appellant guilty of the criminal offence of aggravated theft, is based to a decisive extent on the statements given by the co-accused persons under investigation who, at the main trial, availed themselves of the right not to answer any questions and, therefore, the appellant had no opportunity to call their statements into question at any stage of proceedings, whereas those statements were decisive for the appellant’s conviction and, according to the reasoning of the judgment, no other evidence indicated the appellant’s guilt.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2140/12 of 15 April 2015, paragraph 47; criminal proceedings; the judgment is based to a decisive extent on the statements given by the co-accused persons, who availed themselves of the right to remain silent; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The present case concerns the legal issue related to the enforcement procedure based on the bill of exchange, as an authentic document, which is uniformly regulated in the Federation of BiH by the Law on Enforcement Procedure. The part of the present Decision titled Legal Solutions and Case-Law in BiH and Comparative Law, clearly shows that it is about the question the solution of which requires an interpretation and application of substantive law and procedural law, which is primarily the task of ordinary courts. Furthermore, according to the mentioned part of the Decision, there is not a unique position in court practice or legal literature as to the answer to the specific question, i.e. whether a bill of exchange “without protest”, if it is not protested, is an authentic document, meaning that the protest of a bill of exchange and the effect thereof is the subject-matter of further regulation and clarification also in international law. In that respect, it is hard to speak about the manifest arbitrariness that would serve as the cause for the Constitutional Court to review the manner in which the ordinary courts interpreted and applied Article 29 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure in conjunction with Article 47 of the Bill of Exchange Act in the present case. All the more so, because the Constitutional Court already concluded, while examining the identical allegations of the same appellant about the arbitrary interpretation and application of the law in the identical factual and legal situation, that the ordinary courts gave the clear, thorough and specific reasons for their decisions and that the application of the relevant legal provisions was not arbitrary in any part thereof. Finally, in the situation where in the proceedings before the ordinary courts there is a mechanism to ensure consistency in court practice and uniformity of the courts’ case-law and to avoid conflicting court judgments on the same or similar factual and legal issue, as in the present case, the Constitutional Court, if it intervened in the particular case, would take on a role of ordinary courts and would prejudice a possible solution of the disputed legal issue based on the newly-established mechanism, thereby depriving the mechanism of its objective and purpose in the domestic legal system. Such an approach would be in contravention of the position that the Constitutional Court has already expressed in connection with the importance of setting mechanisms in place to ensure consistency in court practice and uniformity of the courts’case-law.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 760/13 of 30 September 2016, paragraphs 62 and 63; enforcement proceedings, bill of exchange without protest, no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the ordinary courts did not base the conclusion on the appellant’s guilt and penalty on the evidence obtained in violation of Article II(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as there is nothing which would lead to the conclusion that the appellant’s right to defence has been violated or that the proceedings taken as a whole have been unfair.

•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3840/13 of 26 October 2016, paragraph 86; criminal proceedings, no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there has been a violation 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 as the judgment was rendered by the judge before whom not a single piece of evidence was presented, and it is not possible to see that measures were taken to ensure that the judge who passed the decision had the appropriate understanding of the evidence and arguments, for example, by providing for a rehearing of the relevant arguments, i.e. because the principle of immediacy, as an important guarantee of fairness of the proceedings, was not complied with.
In addition, there has been a violation of the appellant’s 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 of his 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 as the courts failed to assess the fact, which is relevant, that the appellant’s property had been permanently seized by the defendant, i.e. the vehicle in question was at disposal of the defendant without court decision (the charges against the appellant had been dismissed and there existed no circumstance indicating that the requirements for retaining the vehicle in question were satisfied).
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4183/13 of 1 December 2016, paragraph 52, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 3/17; civil proceedings wherein the appellant claimed repossession of the apartment and compensation for the counter value of the vehicle in question; the principle of immediacy; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of BiH

The appellant claims that the proceedings, after the Constitutional Court had quashed the decision of the Court of BiH and referred the case back for new proceedings, should have been restored to the stage after the confirmation of the indictment, and the Court of BiH violated the right to an effective legal remedy by failing to do so and denied him the opportunity to present and propose new evidence […]. The Constitutional Court observes that it follows from the challenged judgment of the Court of BiH that this particular court, upon the Constitutional Court’s decision to quash the judgement and to remit the case to the appellate court, concluded that its obligation is to remove violation found in the decision of the Constitutional Court which found that the Criminal Code of BiH had been retroactively applied to the appellant’s detriment with regard to the sentence. Next, it noted that although the appellant’s guilt was not the subject of consideration of the decision of the Constitutional Court, an analysis of the relevant facts supported by evidence being the basis for the conclusion on the appellant’s guilt was presented, and the criminal code applicable at the time when the criminal offence had been committed, i.e. Criminal Code of the SFRY, had been applied to the established facts. In this connection, the Constitutional Court notes that the appellant did not claim in the appeal that his complaints had not been examined in the challenged judgment of the Court of BiH, and he did not challenge the reason given in the contested judgment, with the exception of the part related to the findings of the Court of BiH that he had the opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings conducted against him. Finally, the appellant did not indicate which piece of evidence he could not propose or present in support of his defence, whereas it follows from the reasons for the contested judgment, which was not disputed by the appellant, that the second-instance panel admitted and assessed evidence, medical documentation, which he presented at the session of the Panel and which related to his disability, i.e. hearing-impairment. Thus, the mere fact that the appellant was not satisfied with the conclusion that the Court of BiH, that he was given the opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings, does not bring into question the existence of effective legal remedy, i.e. the opportunity to propose and present new evidence in the appellant proceedings.
•    Decision on Admissibility  and Merits No. AP 875/14 of  15 February  2017, paragraphs 47 to 53, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/17;  criminal  proceedings;  war  crime,  the  proceedings  conducted  after  the Constitutional Court had quashed a decision of the Court of BiH and had referred the case back for new proceedings; no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 7 of the European Convention

The Constitutional Court holds that there has been a violation of the right under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the appellant, while being interrogated by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH, was not informed of all offences with which he was charged nor was he informed of his rights, which was required under Article 6 and Article 78(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, and thus, the prosecutor failed to fulfil his obligation to inform the appellant of the charges, and finally, as the appellant’s statement given during the investigation was admitted as evidence at the main trial, which jeopardized the decision-making and fairness of the proceedings as a whole in the light of general safeguards related to the fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 865/16 of 7 March 2017, paragraph 53, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 25/17; criminal proceedings; war crime, 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 there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty as one of the basic forms of the rule of law within the scope 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 as the court, being the court of last resort, the decision of which could not be appealed according to the law by introducing an effective legal remedy, in a case based on the same points of facts and law, took a completely different decision contrary to the well-established case-law without giving an objective and reasonable justification, where the mechanism which should have ensured the consistency in decision-making was not effective.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4582/16 of 6 December 2018, paragraph 41, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2/19; payment of jubilee awards, a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established