The essence of the right acquired by the first appellant does not constitute an economic value within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, but only a possibility for designating an employee whose social status will be resolved by the owner’s subsequent allocation of the apartment.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. U 69/03 of 19 April 2004, paragraph 18

When the appellant invokes an alleged violation of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska without referring to any of the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which he deems to have been violated, the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. U 73/03 of 23 April 2004, paragraph 8;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1264/06 of 11 March 2008, paragraph 17;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2001/06 of 14 July 2008, paragraph 14

Given the fact that the first instance judgment granted the appellant’s claim and that the challenged second instance judgment dismissed the defendant’s complaint against the first instance judgment as ill-founded and the first instance judgment was upheld, it is evident that the appellant’s reply to the complaint of the defendant was not necessary in regards to the protection and exercise of his rights in the instant dispute. Accordingly, his claim relating to the compensation for expenses incurred by drafting a reply to the complaint is not guaranteed under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 6(1) of the European Convention and Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. U 76/03 of 28 April 2004, paragraph 9

The text of Article 6 of the European Convention and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights provides for, inter alia, the right of access to a court, but it does not provide for a possibility to lodge a complaint with a higher court after the decision on the relevant legal matter has been taken by an independent and impartial tribunal. Accordingly, Article 13 of the European Convention does not oblige a state to ensure a possibility of lodging a complaint with a higher court in order to establish whether there was a violation of the rights under the European Convention (see former European Commission for Human Rights, Decision on Admissibility No. 10153/82 of 13 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49, 67). In such cases Article 13 of the European Convention does not provide for additional protection other than the one provided for by Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 547/03 of 26 August 2004

The appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution since the subject of appeal is related to the right to acquire an apartment and not to the interference with an already acquired right.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 803/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 6

The Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention in the proceedings where the appellant, a public office holder, complains about the decision of the Council on Termination of Term of Office. It follows that the appellant’s allegations are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 121/04 of 22 April 2005

A dispute between the public authority and employees, whose work positions include participation in the exercise of powers relating to public law, does not require application of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 422/04 of 18 May 2005, paragraph 12;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 354/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 423/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 9; decision of HJPC on rejecting the re-election of judge, decision of HJPC on termination of term of office

As to the instant case, the appellant had expectations that he would become the owner of the property through inheritance. Therefore, it follows that the appeal referring to the Ruling of the Inheritance Court in regards to a violation of the right to the property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 1113/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 14, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2250/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 8;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2259/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 13; future property

An appeal shall be deemed to be ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution if the appellant complains about the violation of right to a home and the fact is that she has never lived in the apartment.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 690/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 8

There is no interference with the appellant’s right to respect for home since the appellant complains of being unable to exercise his right to alternative accommodation after being evicted from the apartment in which he lived in as temporary user. Given the circumstances of this case, Article 8 of the European Convention is not applicable since the provision of this Article generally protects the right to respect for home which the appellant does not have in the instant case within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 899/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06

Given the fact that the appellant’s request for alternative accommodation was rejected for the reason that the request has failed to meet the requirements stipulated under the relevant law, the appellant could not have had “legitimate” expectations that he would exercise the desired right because it was established that the requirements stipulated by the relevant law on alternative accommodation were not met. Therefore, in the instant case no violation of the right to property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention could have occurred and therefore the appellant’s allegations concerning this part of the appeal are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 899/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06

When the appellant did not move into the apartment allocated to him based on the ruling of the apartment’s owner and the apartment was subsequently allocated to some other person, the subject of dispute before ordinary courts was not the appellant’s property since the appellant was not the occupancy right holder over the apartment in question. Therefore, in the instant case, Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention cannot be applied.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1035/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 8

The subject of dispute before ordinary courts is the annulment of the defendant’s decision on adoption of final candidate list for allocation of apartments. The apartment which might be allocated to the appellant for his use does not constitute the appellant’s property. Such an apartment may eventually constitute a prospective property since the appellant may acquire the right to be allocated the apartment by application of the relevant defendant’s Rule Book. However, the right to acquire an apartment upon the allocation of the holder of disposal right is not protected by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Convention because the mentioned provision provides no protection for the “future” property and therefore this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1419/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 16

The issuance of work permit to an alien is not only in direct connection with the right of an alien to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina but the said issue is to be resolved within an administrative procedure to be conducted based on the relevant public authority’s margin of appreciation and in accordance with the special Law on Employment of Aliens. In view of the aforesaid, the allegations of the appeal about violation of the right to a fair trial are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1427/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraphs 9 and 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1428/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 9

As to the instant case, a conclusion is not to be drawn that there is interference with the appellant’s home because he has never set up a home but just submitted a request for issuance of ruling that would grant him a right to construct an additional floor on the facility which represents a collective housing unit. The constructed floor might eventually become his home, that is his property, and therefore his allegations about the violation of the right to property and right to home are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2129/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraph 11

The appellant’s allegations about the violation of his right to property due to the Court’s refusal to award him the appeal fee, which he has never paid, are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2178/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 11

By the challenged judgments the appellant’s request for repossession of the apartment was not granted for the reason that the she has never moved into the disputed apartment and she has never concluded the contract on use of the apartment. Accordingly, the subject of the administrative proceedings and administrative dispute is not the appellant’s property because the appellant was not the occupancy right holder over the disputed apartment and the above referenced apartment cannot be considered her “property” within the meaning of Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and thus it cannot enjoy the protection provided for by the mentioned provisions.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1785/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 10

The appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH in relation to the allegations about the violation of Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 8 of the European Convention because the appellant has never moved into the disputed apartment and this fact was indisputably established by the administrative bodies and ordinary courts. Therefore, it is obvious that Article 8 of the European Convention cannot be applied to this case since the appellant has never lived in the disputed apartment and the apartment has never been her “home” within the meaning of Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1785/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 9;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1825/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 11

The appellant referred to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina but failed to refer to the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Convention for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that he deems to have been violated by the challenged decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally compulsory agreement and has no constitutional law status in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It follows that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the provisions of the Constitution of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina he referred to, are not applicable to the instant case. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1931/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 6

The provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Convention are applicable only to the proceedings where the subject of dispute is property and not the proceedings where an appellant attempts to ensure that he has the right to acquire the property. In the case at hand, the subject of dispute before ordinary court is the compensation for non-pecunitary damages, which means the “future” property. Accordingly, Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not to be applied in the instant case nor Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention. Therefore, a conclusion follows that this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 969/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 16

In the case at hand, the subject of dispute before ordinary courts is the amount of money awarded to the appellant for the costs of representation which is less than expected by the appellant. In connection with this, the Constitutional Court points out that Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention only protects the existing possessions and not the right to acquire the possessions (see European Court of Human Rights, Marckx, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A-31). The Constitutional Court recalls a position of the European Commission for Human Rights according to which a request relating to the tariff for public notary service may be considered “property” only if such a conclusion is reached in the instant case based on the services that were indeed provided and based on the existing tariff regulations (see European Commission for Human Rights, X vs. the Federal Republic of Germany, 1979). In the instant case the appellant failed to prove in the court proceedings that her claim is based on the valid Attorney’s Fees. Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that neither Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina nor Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention are to be applied to the instant case. Therefore, it follows that that this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 926/06 of 9 May 2007, paragraph 18

The proceedings in which the appellant appears as plaintiff seeking protection from alleged slander, which implies that the claim was not directed against the appellant with regards to his manner of expression, does not concern the appellant’s right to freedom of expression and therefore the appellant’s allegations in relation to violation of Article II(3)(h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 10 of the European Convention must be dismissed as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 90/06 of 6 July 2007, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/07

The Constitutional Court considers that the appellant’s belief that she would be successful in her claim for the repossession of nationalized property, regardless of the fact that the decision on nationalization of the disputed land has never been annulled as an individual act by the decision of the competent body, does not constitute a “legitimate expectation “within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention since the “legitimate expectation” must be more specific than a mere hope for the restitution and must be based on the legal provisions or on certain legal act. Therefore, the Constitutional Court accordingly concludes that the applicant has not shown that she had a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and she therefore cannot argue that she had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention (op.cit, decision Gratzinger, paragraph 74), for which reason the appellant’s allegations about the violation of the right to property do not fall within the scope of the mentioned provision, but they are rather ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2361/06 of 10 January 2008, paragraph 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2655/06 of 11 March 2008, paragraph 10

The Constitutional Court concludes that pursuant to the provisions of valid laws the prison sentences exceeding three years cannot be the subject of the proceedings in which the sentence would be removed (Article 125(7) of the FBiH Criminal Code). Therefore, the appellant’s allegations that his right to a fair trial was violated during the proceedings at hand must be rejected as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accordingly, given that this case does not concern the determination of civil rights and obligations or grounds for any criminal charge, it follows that the appellant’s allegations about 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 in regards to the procedure of deleting the prison sentence from the criminal record are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, as to the appellant’s allegations that ordinary courts violated his right to freedom of movement and residence while conducting the procedure of deleting the prison sentence from the criminal record, it follows that no decision was to be taken on the appellant’s right to freedom of movement and residence and therefore, even when it comes to the alleged violation of rights under Article II(3)(m) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention, the appeal is to be deemed as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2258/06 of 3 April 2008, paragraphs 10 and 11

As to the challenged rulings of the Supreme Court whereby the appellant’s motion for hearing the protected witness was rejected as inadmissible and untimely, it is concluded no deliberation was conducted on the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty, i.e. on the grounds for the appellant’s detention, but on the procedural admissibility of the appellant’s motion. The accessory proceedings within the criminal proceedings is not related to the rights guaranteed under Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5 of the European Convention. Therefore, the appellant’s allegations must be rejected as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 615/08 of 3 April 2008, paragraph 9

The appellant, i.e. the Chamber of Commerce of the Republika Srpska, as an organization established ex lege, is not entitled to protection under Article 11 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1435/06 of 12 June 2008, paragraph 8

Given the fact that the appellant did not refer to the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy and that he failed to submit evidence or point to the facts based on which a conclusion could be made that the case falls within the scope of the provisions of the European Convention, the Constitutional Court concludes that the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (see, the Constitutional Court, for example AP 1047/07 of 26 June 2007, paragraph 26).
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1652/08 of 4 September 2008, paragraph 9

Article 179(3) of the Law on the Service in the Armed Force of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides that administrative dispute [...] shall not be conducted against the act relating to [...] termination of service of professional military person. Thus, taking into account that in the instant case the military persons are explicitly excluded from having access to court and that the state, by regulating this issue, has used its “discretionary right” in the course of defense reform, both requirements for the exclusion of appellants, as civil servants, from the protection provided for under Article 6(1) of the European Convention have been met in the instant case.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1765/08 of 17 September 2008, paragraph 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1986/10 of 29 June 2010, paragraph 10

The Constitutional Court notes that the challenged judgements issued by the ordinary court on the basis of Article 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH and the Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the mutual enforcement of foreign judicial decisions in criminal procedures, in the present case do not fall under the scope of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 56/09 of 25 October 2011, paragraph 20

Procedures not dealing with the “determination of civil rights and obligations” in the context of Article 6 of the ECHR

According to the presented opinions, the procedure in which the appellant is obliged to pay the customs and other duties does not fall within the scope of the protection of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 382/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 6

The procedure of payment of duties arising from tax (public) law does not fall within the scope of rights guaranteed under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 529/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraph 6; obligation of payment of public revenues; appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH

The procedure relating to cashing in on the property of the debtor for the purpose of settling accounts of the creditors does not in any way concern the appellants’ “civil rights and obligations” as creditors since they tried to acquire the property through applying for the tender, which is not to be considered a “civil right or obligation” and therefore it does not fall within the scope of Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision  on Admissibility  No. AP 914/04  of  12 April  2005,  paragraph  12; bankruptcy proceedings

Deciding the issues of movement and stay of aliens falls exclusively within the competence of state authorities and it cannot be associated with the concept of “civil rights and obligations” as protected under Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 244/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 7

The decision of Municipal Council to allocate the construction land in accordance with the existing criteria to the appellant’s neighbor by direct settlement for the purpose of extending the courtyard, constitutes an act of land disposal since the appellant has been renting that land for more than ten years. Therefore, in the instant case there is no “determination of the appellant’s civil rights and obligations”. As to the procedure against the challenged judgment in which the appellant challenges the mentioned decision on allocation of land to the neighbor, the conclusion is made that he is not entitled to the protection within the meaning of the mentioned constitutional right. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1038/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraphs 6 and 7

According to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the right of an alien to settle in a certain country falls within the domain of public law of each country. If a certain country, even on temporary basis, has denied the right of stay in to an alien for the reasons stipulated by law, that is to be considered an act of the state which falls within the scope of its public legal domain and it does not enjoy the protection of Article 6 of the European Convention as “civil right or obligation”. Therefore, although such a decision may have certain effect on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations, the respective state shall not be required to ensure a public hearing in such case neither would it be required
to meet other requirements set out in Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1189/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 8

The procedure in which the appellant, as a state authority, was ordered to conduct a new vacancy announcement procedure after the previous procedure had been annulled because of being unlawfully conducted, is not a procedure in which some of the appellant’s civil rights and obligations were determined. Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not applicable in the instant case, and therefore the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1929/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 6

Civil rights and obligations are not to be determined in the procedure which concerns managing the main hearing. In the view of the aforesaid, the outcome of such a procedure is not decisive for determination of civil rights and obligations. Article 6(1) of the European Convention is not applicable to the case at hand and the appeal is rejected as inadmissible for it is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2160/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraphs 9 and 10

In his appeal, the appellant complains of the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention for he considers that the decision on annulment of appellant’s decision dealing with appointment of a candidate to the fireman’s position should have been taken in the course of administrative dispute and not in the course of civil proceedings. Given that Article 6 of the European Convention guarantees that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations [...] everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing [...] ”, and in this specific case the rights the appellant complains to have been violated do not fall within the scope of “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2104/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 17

The civil rights and obligations are not to be determined in the procedure of issuance of documents from the collection of land registry documents.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 299/07 of 3 April 2008, paragraph 6

The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that in the procedure in which the ordinary courts were deciding the appellant’s motion for the annulment of the “validity clause”, the decision was not taken on the determination of the appellant’s rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention. Namely, in the proceedings at hand, the ordinary courts were merely resolving the procedural issues concerning the fulfillment of requirements for annulment of validity clause. Therefore, the outcome of that procedure cannot be decisive for determination of civil rights and obligations.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 459/08 of 12 June 2008, paragraph 8

The Constitutional Court concludes that in the proceedings at hand, which has the characteristics of dispute arising from the election process, the decision was not taken on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations but it is rather that the decision was taken on his political rights. Given that the guarantees from Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention are not applicable to the proceedings in question, the Constitutional Court concludes that the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3593/08 of 18 December 2008, paragraph 10

The electoral disputes relating to the elected officials are outside of the civil and criminal scope of Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2418/06 of 18 December 2008; conflict of interest

The Constitutional Court holds that no applicant’s civil rights or obligations were decided upon in the relevant proceedings but on the legality of decision issued by the appellant (the Assembly of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina) within the scope of authorities stemming from its position of the legislative power holder. Therefore, the appellant’s allegations on the violation of the right to a fair trial must be rejected as ration materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3080/11 of 23 September 2011, paragraph 15

The present case concerns a procedure wherein the issue of a possible violation of the rules and regulations of the Agency was discussed ex officio, as possibly inflicted by the RTV FBiH during the show “60 minutes”. The Constitutional Court further observes that the Agency, in such a procedure, within the meaning of Article 46(3) of the Law on Communications, if it establishes the existence of a violation, shall have the authority to apply enforcement measures against the perpetrator proportional to the violations as prescribed by the mentioned legal provision. Further, the Constitutional Court observes that a first-instance act had been rendered in the respective procedure suspending that procedure, as it was established that the respective program of RTV FBiH did not violate the regulations of the Agency, as well as the second-instance act upholding that first- instance act, against which act the appellant filed a lawsuit with the Court of BiH, which was rejected by means of the challenged ruling of the Court of BiH with references to Article 25(3) of the Law on Administrative Disputes (which prescribes that the Court shall reject the action by decision if it concludes: that it is obvious that the final administrative act disputed by the action does not affect the right of the plaintiff or his/her personal interest based on law). Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court notes that the present procedure before the Agency, which was finalized by the act against which the appellant filed a lawsuit with the Court of BiH, did not involve the discussion on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations, rather it was disputed whether RTV FBiH, as the third person, violated in the mentioned show the rules and regulations of the Agency, and whether, accordingly, conditions exist to apply the measures against the mentioned person as referred to in Article 46(3) of the Law on Communications. The allegations made in the appeal support this wherein the appellant indicated that “the procedure was not conducted for the protection of the subjective rights of the appellant” and that “the essence of this procedure was for [the Agency] as a competent regulator to establish the violation of the Law on Communications and the Code on Broadcasting Radio Television Program and to sanction the TV broadcaster”. Therefore, given that there was no discussion in the respective procedure on the appellant’s rights and obligations, the appellant may not enjoy the protection of rights guaranteed under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, including the right of access to court, which makes the appeal ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2649/14 of 15 February 2017, paragraph 17

In the circumstances of the present case, the disputed failure to submit the excerpts from the Central Voters Register for the purpose of carrying out the referendum does not fall under the civilian aspect.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3805/16 of 15 February 2017, paragraph 15

As to the allegations about the violation of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Constitutional Court indicates that the mentioned article in the relevant part reads that “Every” citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: … (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. Given that the appellant in the present case is a political party and not a citizen within the meaning of the mentioned provisions, the Constitutional Court deems that the guarantees referred to in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may not be applied to the respective procedure. In that connection, the Constitutional Court points to the position of United Nations Human Rights Committee, according to which the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entrusted the Human Rights Committee with the competence to consider objections regarding alleged violations of the Covenant by a State Party to the Protocol (Articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol). That is explicitly limited to the right of individuals to lodge applications. Therefore, objections submitted on their behalf by nongovernmental organizations, associations, political parties or corporations are declared, as a rule, inadmissible, over the lack of the standing as a party (see, e.g., Persons with Disability in Italy v. Italy (Application no. 163/1984). Bearing in mind the aforementioned, these allegations of the appellant are also ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 7518/18 of 10 January 2019, paragraph 10

Enforcement proceedings

An appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution where a challenged decision, which has been adopted in the course of enforcement proceedings, does not relate to new and special determination of civil rights in relation to the decision adopted in the civil proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 939/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 12

The decisions that are adopted in the course of enforcement of legally binding judgment are not relating to a new and special determination of civil rights in the case where the appellant has failed to present a relevant fact in the civil proceedings which could then lead to different outcome of that civil proceedings. It is because presenting that fact in the enforcement proceedings could not and it did not lead to new and special determination of the appellant’s rights in relation to the civil proceedings.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1075/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 7; enforcement proceedings; the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the BiH Constitution

The challenged ruling on enforcement was adopted on the basis of the Order requesting the return of items and therefore it is not an act of the court which was adopted as a result of “determination of grounds for criminal charge” against the appellant “in the criminal proceedings” because the said proceedings was terminated 8 years prior to adoption of the mentioned order. Also, the order on return of items is not a result of proceedings in which “civil rights and obligations” would be determined within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention. Therefore, the ruling on enforcement which was adopted based on the Order not arising from the criminal or civil proceedings does not fall within the scope of Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 895/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraphs 16 and 18
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1135/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 9
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1236/05 of 13 June 2006, paragraph 10
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1336/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 9

Renewal of proceedings

There will be no guarantees for the protection of constitutional rights and primarily procedural rights such as those from Article 6 of the European Convention, in the course of proceedings in which the appellants pursue non-effective legal remedies because the issues from the substantive domain of individual constitutional rights cannot be resolved in those proceedings in an effective manner.
• Decision on Merits No. AP 945/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 27, which was published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/06
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1517/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 8
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1159/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraphs 7 and 8
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1480/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 9

Issuance of an interim measure/security measure

An interim measure shall not prejudice a main decision in any way. An interim measure ceases to have effect after the adoption of the main decision. It regulates the interim legal position of the appellant pending the conclusion the main proceedings. Accordingly, no civil rights of the appellant are to be determined for the purpose of Article 6 of the European Convention in the proceedings of adoption of ruling on interim measure. In view of the aforesaid, this part of the appeal where the Constitutional Court was requested to review the constitutionality of the ruling must be rejected as inadmissible for it is ratione materiae incompatible with the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 207/02 of 26. August 2004, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/04
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 743/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 40, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06

Restoration to original condition (restitutio in integrum)

The procedure of restitutio in integrum does not fall within the scope of Article 6 of the European Convention since it does not involve the proceedings for determination of the civil rights and obligations but rather a decision on whether the formal requirements have been met for restoration to original condition. Therefore, this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1954/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 7

Procedure of registration into the court register

No decision was taken on the appellants’ civil rights and obligations in the course of the procedure of erasing the final entry from the court register which concerns the foreign founders’ joining the company, increase of basic capital, erasing of some activities within the company’s internal business transactions, registration of persons authorized to represent the company, as well as all other subsequent registrations of changes brought in the court register, which are based on the erased registration. In other words, that procedure was not decisive for the appellants’ private rights and obligations.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2460/08 of 14 October 2008, paragraph 11

Instigating criminal proceedings against third parties

The Constitutional Court notes that the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the right of an injured party to participate in the proceedings since he is “a person whose personal or property right has been violated or endangered by criminal offence (Article 139(1) (6)). However, this right is not protected by Article 6 of the European Convention. In view of the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court concluded that this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and taking into account the provisions of Article 16(2)(9) of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, this part of the appeal is also inadmissible.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 12/02 of 19 April 2004, paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04

The appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution in the event the appellant complains of adoption of judicial decision within reasonable time in the proceedings in which the appellant takes part in his capacity as an injured and not as an accused person.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 688/04 of 17 February 2005, paragraph 10

An appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution in the event the appellant complains about judicial decisions whereby the decisions were taken on the appellant’s accusations against third persons, in other words if the appellant does not complain about judicial decisions relating to his culpability.
• Decision on  Admissibility No.  AP  560/04 of  28  June  2005,  paragraph  14; the institution of criminal proceedings against third persons due to violation of employment rights

The opposite interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention, according to which a right to a fair trial would also be guaranteed to a person seeking determination of grounds for criminal accusation against other person, would exceed the linguistic scope of interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on the Merits No. AP 949/04 of 17 November 2005, paragraphs 47 and 48
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1221/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraphs 11 and 12
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1104/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 7
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1304/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 12

Not a criminal charge

By rendering the challenged rulings, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has taken over the criminal case ex officio from the County Court in Trebinje and the decision was taken to resume the criminal proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accordingly, there is no dispute that in this stage of the proceedings no decision on the grounds for the criminal charge against the appellant was to be taken within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention, and therefore that provision is not applicable to the case at hand and the appeal is rejected as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2094/05 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 6

The appellant’s allegations with regards to the proceedings for the postponement of execution of criminal sanction are not relating to determination of grounds for any criminal charges against him, in which case the examination of the alleged violation of rights the appellant refers to, would fall within the scope of Article 6 of the European Convention. In this case Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides no wider scope of protection. It follows that the appellant’s allegations of the violation of the right to a fair trial are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2054/05 of 17 November 2005, paragraph 7

The procedure of sending a person to a solitary confinement cell after a disciplinary measure being pronounced is not a procedure in which criminal charge is to be established for the purpose of Article 6 of the European Convention. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2076/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 13

No protection provided for by the Constitution of BiH and ECHR

The right to “engage in work and pursue a freely chosen profession as prescribed by law”, does not exist in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 750/04 of 9 December 2004, paragraph 4

Procedure of recognition of a foreign judicial decision

The procedure in which a decision is to be taken about whether legal requirements have been met for recognition of a foreign decision, without a decision on the merits of the case, is not a procedure falling within the scope of Article 6 of the European Convention or Article No. 1 to Protocol No. to this Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 16/03 of 17 March 2004, paragraph 16;
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1199/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 8

Divorce

The rights and freedoms provided for under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms and its Protocols are directly applicable in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Article II, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina lists the catalogue of rights for all persons in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina which, within the meaning of the said provision, does not include the right to divorce.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 136/02 of 15 June 2004, paragraph 5