There is no violation of the right to an effective legal remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention, when the appellants are not restricted in any way in using legal remedies prescribed by law, as well as that the legal regulation lacks in that respect a necessary legal quality in relation to the compliance with the requirements set forth in the mentioned articles, only because the law does not prescribe a mandatory trial before the second-instance court, or a larger number of extraordinary legal remedies.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 215/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 100, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 68/06
There is no violation of the right to an effective legal remedy under Article 13 of the European Convention in conjunction with the 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 Law on the Conflict of Interest of BiH prescribes the right to an appeal, as a legal remedy making it possible for the competent court to carry out judicial control of decisions of the Central Election Commission of BiH in connection with the correct application of the Law on the Conflict of Interest, and thereby to adopt decisions removing possible violations of the election law and determine sanctions for failures to enforce decisions. The mentioned authorizations of the Court of BiH are, according to the assessment by the Constitutional Court, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 13 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3453/09 of 28 April 2010, paragraph 65, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 74/10
The Constitutional Court concluded that there had been a violation of the right to aneffective legal remedy under Article 1 of the European Convention in connection with the right to freedom of movement under Article II(3)(m) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention, where, due to the omission on the part of the ordinary court to examine upon the expiry of two months whether the applied measure of prohibition restricting the appellant’s freedom of movement is still necessary, the appellant had been deprived of a possibility to contest in an adversarial procedure before the court the measures imposed, and, due to the non- existence of a decision, to avail herself of an effective legal remedy prescribed by law.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 715/17 of 22 March 2017, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/17; measures of prohibition
