Considering that the purpose of sanction passed in minor offences proceedings is the prevention and it includes a significant amount of money, such minor offences fall within the ambit of Article 6 of the European Convention under the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
•    Decision No. U 19/00 of 4 May 2001, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/01

The proceedings in which the appellants were found guilty of economic crime are based on the regulations that, in essence, represent criminal legislation by their nature. The amount of the fine imposed on the appellants is significant. Taking into account all relevant factors, it is concluded that the appellants are entitled to the entire procedural protection available in the determination of a criminal charge under Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 223/02 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 20, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/04; the proceedings which determine liability for economic crime

A contrary interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention, according to which the right to a fair trial would be guaranteed also to a person who seeks that the justification of criminal charges against another person be determined, would exceed the scope for interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 408/04 of 18 January 2005, paragraph 11; the termination of the investigation in criminal proceedings, the appellant is an injured party to the proceedings

In order to determine whether the essential character of the legislative scheme is criminal, the courts have to consider a number of factors and, in particular: a) whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the relevant laws is to prevent or to sanction of certain conduct,
b) whether the conduct subject to prevention or to sanction implies a guilt in case where the purpose is to prevent or to sanction (for example, fraudulent conduct or negligence), and c) what is the amount of sanction which can be imposed for the offence.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 437/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; payment of a fine for contempt of court; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

Considering the case-law related to Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, the regulations relevant to the present case essentially represent criminal legislation by their nature [...].Taking into account all relevant factors, it is concluded that the appellant is entitled to the entire procedural protection available in the determination of a criminal charge under Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 437/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 19, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; payment of a fine for contempt of court; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 508/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; payment of a fine for traffic offence; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 530/04 of 18 January 2005, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 42/05; payment of a fine for non-payment of tax; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH;
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 599/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06; minor offences proceedings, the accused legal person did not represent the authorized person; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

Disciplinary proceedings conducted against judges and prosecutors by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina are criminal in nature.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 633/04 of 27 May 2005, paragraphs 20 to 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 73/05;
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 662/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06; disciplinary proceedings against the judge before the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

“Criminal charge” is an autonomous concept, that is to say, an act which is classified in national law as a regulatory offence may none the less be regarded as giving rise to a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention, although the essential character of the legislative scheme is not criminal, but rather civil, in nature - in order to ensure that a State cannot avoid the obligation to provide a fair hearing merely by classifying an act as non-criminal in its legislation.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 2078/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 25, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7/07; seizure of a vehicle for customs offence

The assessment as to whether a charge is “criminal” within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention is to be given on the basis of the following criteria: classification according to the legislation, the nature of the offence and the nature and degree of severity of the penalty (see, European Court of Human Rights, Engel and Others vs. Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976). These criteria must be met cumulatively. The nature of the offence includes two sub-criteria: the scope of the violated norm and purpose of the punishment, which must be met cumulatively.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2468/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 21, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/07; minor offences proceedings

Although the purpose of punishment for violations of the rules of conduct during the election process is not specifically defined in the Election Law, it aims at preventing the actions which could jeopardize the election process, preventing possible disturbance of public order, preventing limitations of freedom of expression (Article 7.3 para 1 item 7), strengthening the morality and making influence on development of responsibility and discipline. The Constitutional Court holds that it appears that the case at hand engages “criminal” charge rather than a disciplinary sanction.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 952/05 of 8 July 2006, paragraph 20, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 87/06; elections;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 41/07 of 14 October 2009, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4/10

The Constitutional Court notes that the appellant does not challenge the decision deciding directly on criminal charges. The appeal is related neither to the type nor to the amount of the sanction determined, i.e. the facts that are not considered, as a rule, by the Constitutional Court when deciding about violations of the right to a fair trial. The appeal is actually filed against the decision replacing the prison sentence by a fine. However, the Constitutional Court holds that Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention apply to the present case, too. Namely, the appeal relates to the application of the substantive law in respect of the execution of the sanction pronounced by the Court deciding on the criminal charge against the appellant and, therefore, the Constitutional Court concludes that it is about the joint proceedings “to determine the criminal charge”, as the decision on admissibility of the execution of the sanction pronounced or the decision on the statute of limitations of the execution of the sanction pronounced is an integral part of the trial, i.e. of the determination of the criminal charge.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2402/08 of 25 March 2011, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 81/11; criminal proceedings, the prison sentence replaced by a fine, a violation of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention established;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2809/12 of 24 May 2013, paragraphs 21 and 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/13

Taking into account that the present case relates to minor offence proceedings, the Constitutional Court points out that an issue arises as to the applicability of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention in the present case, i.e. whether it concerns a “criminal charge” against the appellant within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention. The Constitutional Court recalls the general position and reiterates that in ascertaining whether there is a “criminal charge”, regard must be had to three criteria: the legal classification of the measure in question in national law, the very nature of the measure, and the nature and degree of severity of the “penalty” (see European Court of Human Rights, Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], App. No. 26780/95, paragraph 32, ECHR 1999-VII). Furthermore, these criteria are alternative and not cumulative ones: for Article 6 to apply in respect of the words “criminal charge”, it suffices that the offence in question should by its nature be “criminal” from the point of view of the Convention, or should have made the person concerned liable to a sanction which, by virtue of its nature and degree of severity, belongs in general to the “criminal” sphere. This does not prevent a cumulative approach from being adopted where the separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a “criminal charge” (see European Court of Human Rights, Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece, 24 September 1997, paragraph 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V; Jussila v. Finland [GC], App. No. 73053/01, paragraphs 30 and 31, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Zaicevs v. Latvia, App. No. 65022/01, paragraph 31, ECHR 2007-IX). Furthermore, the Constitutional Court points out that, according to the case-law of European Court of Human Rights, even a minor traffic offence constitutes a “criminal offence” for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (see European Court of Human Rights, Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 17 to 21, paragraphs 46 to 54; Falk v. the Netherlands, Judgment on Admissibility of 19 October 2004, App. No. 66273/01). Thus, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Falk v. the Netherlands, concluded that the proceedings concerning the fine of 108.91 euros, imposed on the applicant, as the owner of the car, for a traffic offence – namely having failed to give way to a pedestrian who wanted to cross the road at a pedestrian crossing, as a minor traffic offence, fall within the scope of Article 6 of the Convention (see, ibid, Falk v. the Netherlands). In view of the aforementioned case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and taking the aforementioned general criteria as a starting point, the Constitutional Court concludes that the present case, given the scope of the norm regulating the petty offence and the purpose of the sanction, relates to a “criminal charge” and that Article 6 of the European Convention applies to the present case.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 716/09 of 26 January 2012, paragraph 13; proceedings in the petty offence case

The Constitutional Court notes that the appellant in the present case challenges the ruling that is not related to the determination of a criminal charge against him but that imposes a temporary prohibition on disposal of property until the completion of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court notes that the provisional measure in the present case was issued at the investigation stage and that, according to the ruling of the Court of BiH, pursuant to Articles 65 and 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, i.e. Articles 110, 110a and 111 of the Criminal Code of BiH, its purpose was to secure at the initial stage of the proceedings that they were completed without a risk of alienating the property, in respect of which existed a strong suspicion that it had originated from the perpetration of the criminal offence. The Constitutional Court notes that according to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, material gain acquired by the perpetration of a criminal offence will be confiscated by the court decision, which established the perpetration of the criminal offence (Article 110) and that the appellant’s property in the present case could be seized only if the criminal liability of the appellant suspected of committing the criminal offences were established. Therefore, the Constitutional Court holds that the challenged decisions, by their nature, are temporary and that there is no indication that the relevant rulings, in terms of the positions taken by the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court, “have had any impact on the appellant’s criminal record” and, therefore, they cannot be regarded as a “determination of a criminal charge” against the appellant within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention. In view of the above, the Constitutional Court holds that the issue of fairness of the relevant proceedings does not fall within the ambit of Article 6(1) of the European Convention or Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH and, therefore, the appellant’s appeal relating to a violation of the right to a fair trial is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2753/13 of 13 September 2015, paragraphs 37 and 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 83/15; criminal proceedings, provisional measure prohibiting alienation and disposal of property