The appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial is violated in case where the court of first-instance failed to hold a public hearing, as proposed in the appellants’ lawsuit, where the second-instance court made no attempt to correct the first-instance court’s failure, where there were no exceptional reasons justifying the failure of the second- instance court to hold the hearing.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 1124/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 32 et seq., published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/06;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 231/05 of 23 February 2006, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 35/06; administrative proceedings and administrative dispute related to the lawfulness of the decision and the contract on use of the apartment
As to the appellant’s allegations that he was given no opportunity to be heard, the case-file shows that the Supreme Court rendered all the judgments while holding the proceedings in camera. In this context, the appellant failed to submit to the Constitutional Court evidence proving that he proposed that the hearing be held before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the appellant’s allegations are unfounded and there is no violation of his right to a fair trial.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 993/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 80, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/06;
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1044/04 of 26 April 2005, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/05
There is a violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial as he was denied right to public proceedings before the customs authorities and the Supreme Court. The appellant was given no opportunity to assess the allegations made against him nor was he afforded the opportunity to state the reasons for filing the lawsuit in administrative dispute.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 505/05 of 23 February 2006, paragraph 27 et seq., published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/05;
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 580/05 of 23 February 2006, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06
The Constitutional Court notes that the Cantonal Court should have held a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Law on Administrative Procedure and in compliance with the standards established in the case law of the European Court with regard to the need to hold a public hearing. In particular, the Constitutional Court observes that it is undisputed in the present case that the appellant expressly requested that the public hearing be held, that he indicated erroneously established facts in the proceedings before the administrative authorities and that the Cantonal Court was entitled to examine the disputed facts, which were alleged by the appellant. Given the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court holds that the rights under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention has been violated as the public hearing before the Cantonal Court was not held. Thus, with the aim of protecting the appellant’s rights, the Constitutional Court quashed the contested decision and remitted the case back to the Cantonal Court, which is obligated to take a new decision in compliance with the guarantees under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1696/13 of 16 March 2016, paragraphs 24 to 25; administrative dispute
