The Constitutional Court of BiH recalls that, according to the Code of Ethics for Journalists, it is the duty of journalists, editors and publishers of print and online media, among other things, to respect the needs of citizens for accurate, useful, timely and relevant information, and to defend the principles of freedom of information. They are also required to be aware of the harmfulness of publishing and transmitting disinformation, as that is a flagrant violation of the basic rules of the journalism. Furthermore, spreading disinformation from another media or sources does not absolve the editors of the media that transmit disinformation.

Given the foregoing, with a view to protecting its own integrity and truthfully presenting its work to the public, the Constitutional Court must react to the explosion of false information about the decisions that the Constitutional Court took on 23 January 2025. As can be observed there is a welcoming of “the Constitutional Court's decision on Schmidt's amendments and repeating how legal violence has been committed in the FBiH”; “Vukoja and Galić consistently follow HDZ's policy: they were against the decision finding the discriminatory nature of Schmidt's amendments!". In addition, all this through the Constitutional Court’s decision in the case of Albin Zuhrić and others.

However, the Constitutional Court reminds that decision no. AP-849/23 in the Albin Zuhrić and others case, at the time of reporting about it, was not mentioned in the Constitutional Court's press release on the session held on 23 January 2025 because it was just one among a number of other decisions. It has not been published on the Constitutional Court's website or anywhere else. Furthermore, the two judges whose names are mentioned have not yet delivered their separate opinions. It follows that the articles alleging that the Constitutional Court has found that the Amendments to the FBiH Constitution are unconstitutional are arbitrary, fabricated or in the interests of some political entities and for playing games.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court, although generally not providing explanations for its decisions, emphasizes that in the case of Albin Zuhrić and others, it decided on individual appeals filed against the final decisions of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The decisions contested before the Constitutional Court rejected the verification of Zlatan Begić as a candidate of a group of delegates in the Others Caucus in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Albin Zuhrić, Sandra Imširović, and Senita Handukić) for the election of the President and Vice-President of the Federation of BiH from the group of Others. In its decision, the Constitutional Court relied on the conclusions from the Decision on Admissibility and Merits no. U-14/12 of 26 March 2015, where it addressed the substantively identical issues as to the law and facts regarding the impossibility for the members of the group of Others to stand as candidates for the President and Vice-President of the Federation of BiH. Therefore, the Constitutional Court, following its own case law in that case and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Sejdić and Finci, Zornić, Pilav, and other similar cases, concluded that differential treatment of the appellants based solely on their ethnic affiliation has no objective and reasonable justification. Thus, this is in violation of  the appellants' right to non-discrimination under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In this context, the Constitutional Court particularly emphasizes that the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH does not question the assessment of the constitutionality of the amendments introduced by the High Representative, nor does it contain a conclusion stating that "Schmidt's amendments to the FBiH Constitution, adopted on election night, discriminate against the 'Others'," as reported by some media outlets. In contrast, the Constitutional Court highlights that in its reasoning, it reiterated its position from the Decision on Admissibility and Merits no. U-27/22 of 22 March 2023 (see paragraph 134, available at www.ustavnisud.ba). It clearly pointed out that the content of the contested provisions of the Amendments introduced by the High Representative, no. CXX and Chapter 9A in relation to the provisions of the BiH Election Law, points to the fact that these provisions, enacted by the High Representative, did not change the earlier provisions of the FBiH Constitution and the Election Law concerning the exclusion of the possibility for members of the 'Others' to stand as candidates for the President and Vice Presidents of the Federation of BiH.

With a view to providing clearer information to the public, the Constitutional Court deems it important to note that it reiterated in the case at hand the position taken in the Decision no. U-14/12 of 26 March 2015 (paragraph 73), as well as the position referred to in the decisions in the referenced cases (see, decisions on merits nos. U-3/17 of 6 July 2017, paragraphs 35 and 36; U-14/22 of 26 May 2022, paragraphs 37 and 38; and op.cit. U-27/22, paragraph 135; available at: www.ustavnisud.ba) (all, but one, adopted before the High Representative’s intervention into the Constitution of FBiH on 2 October 2022), that the resolution of this issue requires, primarily, amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the Constitutional Court decided not to quash the mentioned provisions of the Constitutions of the Entities and the Election Law of BiH. In other words, the Constitutional Court decided not to order the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH and the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to harmonise the mentioned provisions until such time the constitutional and legislative measures are adopted within the domestic legal system to end the existing incompatibility of the Constitution of BiH and the Election Law of BiH with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was established by the European Court in the mentioned cases of Sejdić and Finci, Zornić, Pilav and in other similar cases.

As to the expression of views about the Vice-President of the Constitutional Court Valerija Galić and the judge of the Constitutional Court Marin Vukoja, we emphasise that it is inappropriate to call out judges who have announced a possibility to submit separate opinions, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At this point in time, as stated, the decision is at a stage of post-production, and whether the called out judges will indeed avail themselves of their right to submit a separate opinion, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, is inappropriate to comment on at this point. Moreover, the discussion that the mentioned judges engaged in with respect to this case was not about opposition to the decision itself, but about consideration of admissibility under Article 18 (3) (e) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, namely the issue of consideration of whether the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina had already adjudicated about the same matter earlier, as it is undisputed that it was the issue, concerning which the Constitutional Court of BiH rendered similar decisions before.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina calls on the media and the public to engage in responsible reporting and to refrain from incorrect interpretation of the decisions of the Court, in order to preserve the trust in the independence and impartiality of this institution. The Constitutional Court calls, particularly, on the media, which reported on the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Zuhrić and others in the fashion described above, the media that apparently do not adhere to their own Code, to refrain from involving the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in such games and possible service to someone’s or anyone’s political interests. We kindly ask that you let us do our work that the Constitution of BiH has authorised and obliged us to do. Already without this, we face too many obstructions and blockages. Do not contribute to the collapse of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina!!!
 

Seada Palavrić
President
Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina