On 19 November 2025, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its 11th extraordinary plenary session (online) at which it adopted a Decision on Admissibility in case no. AP-4618/25 (the appellant, political organisation Za pravdu i red - Lista Nebojše Vukanovića).
By Decision on Admissibility in case no. AP-4618/25, the Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible the appeal lodged by the political organisation Za pravdu i red - Lista Nebojše Vukanovića against the ruling of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. S1 3 Iž 053064 25 Iž of 10 October 2025 on the grounds that the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In its reasons, the Constitutional Court noted, inter alia, that the present case involved a decision on the application of the Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata (SNSD) for participation at the early elections for President of the Republika Srpska to be held on 23 November 2025 Consequently, no appellant’s rights that can be linked to freedom of assembly and association were decided in the procedure. In view of the above, the Constitutional Court has held that the appellant's complaints of a violation of freedom of assembly and association under Article II(3)(i) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH.
The Constitutional Court further noted that the appellant cannot invoke a violation of Article I(2) of the Constitution of BiH only because it considered that decisions of ordinary courts and competent authorities were not adopted in line with the principle of rule of law. Specifically, the appellant is required to specify how the violation of the rule of law under Article I(2) of the Constitution of BiH resulted in a violation of one of its rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of BiH and the ECHR. Otherwise, any person can lodge an appeal against an ordinary court’s decision by referring to Article I(2) of the Constitution of BiH regardless of whether that decision actually decided on their rights and interests.
The Constitutional Court recalled that the disputed decision decided on the regularity of the SNSD’s application for participation in the early elections for the RS President. Therefore, the appellant’s application was not the subject of the procedure in question. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has not observed that another right of the appellant’s was decided upon. Specifically, the Constitutional Court has observed that the appellant had its application for participation at the elections in question certified and did not nominate its candidate for the early elections. The Constitutional Court has not observed that the procedure in question could affect the appellant’s rights as a political subject directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has observed that the appellant argued that the decisions of the Court of BiH and the Central Election Commission of BiH violated its rights “guaranteed by Article I(2) of the Constitution of BiH”, but failed to mention the manner in which the disputed decision has affected any of its rights directly or indirectly. Thus, it followed that the appellant failed to cite or offer evidence that the decision challenged by the appeal could have any bearing on its constitutional rights or fundamental freedoms. The Constitutional Court therefore held that the complaints alleging a violation of Article I(2) of the Constitution of BiH are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH.
Regarding the appellant’s reference to Article II(1) of the Constitution of BiH, the Constitutional Court has indicated that that it is not a matter of substantive law, the violation of which the appellant can independently invoke, but rather a constitutional provision obliging BiH and its Entities to ensure the highest level of internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Constitutional Court therefore found that these complaints, too, are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH.
In the light of the decision in this case, the Constitutional Court has found that it was not necessary to separately address the appellant’s request for an interim measure.
