The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at its 111th plenary session held today, September 27th, 2018, decided a number of requests for review of the constitutionality of laws and appeals field for alleged violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and several proposals for internal decisions.
For the purpose of illustration, we single out the following:
In case no. U 5/16, the Constitutional Court considered a request filed by Ms. Borjana Krišto, Second Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives at the time of filing the request for the review of constitutionality of the provisions of Article 109(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH. The applicant claimed that the contested provisions, which related to the forcible medical treatment with the aim of gathering evidence were in contravention of Article II(3)(b) and (f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention as they did not specify the degree to which coercive medical procedure was necessary for obtaining evidence, the risk to the suspect’s health, the manner in which the procedure was performed and the physical pain and mental suffering the procedure inflicted, the degree of available physician’s (medical) supervision and the effects on the suspect’s health. The Constitutional Court will take a decision in this case at one of the next plenary sessions.
In case no. U 8/18, the Constitutional Court considered a request of Mr. Mladen Bosić, Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of filing the request, for review of constitutionality of Articles 2 and 10 of the Constitution of the Posavina Canton, Articles 1 and 8 of the Constitution of the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, Articles 4 and 8 of the Constitution of Bosnian-Podrinje Canton and Article 10 of the Constitution of the Western Herzegovina Canton and rejected it as inadmissible as the Constitutional Court was not competent to take a decision. The Constitutional Court noted in the reasons for its decision that the compliance with the principle of the constituent status of peoples and principle of non-discrimination as an issue falling also under the scope of responsibilities of the Federation of BiH raised an issue of compatibility of the acts containing the provisions on this issue with the Constitution of the Entity, in respect of which the Constitutional Court of the Entity was the final authority. Taking into account the relevant case-law of the Entity’s Constitutional Court, namely the Constitutional Court of the Federation of BiH and its judgement of 16 May 2018, the Constitutional Court held that there were no circumstances indicating that the Constitutional Court of the Entity, namely the Constitutional Court of the Federation of BiH, interpreted and applied the Constitution of the Entity contrary to the Constitution of BiH.
In case no. U 12/18, the Constitutional Court rejected a request of the Municipal Court of Sarajevo (Judge Aljičević) for the review of constitutionality of the Decision of Trnovo Municipal Council on the Amendments to the Decision Introducing Mandatory Payment of Compensation for the Use of City Construction Land, no. 01-23-346/12 of 14 February 2012, and the Decision of Trnovo Municipal Council on Setting Prices for Water Production and Distribution, no. 01-14-2522/13 of 1 October 2013, as it was not competent to take a decision.
All decisions related to the requests for review of constitutionality and appeals that are adopted at the session will be communicated to the applicants and appellants within one month and published on the website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
