The Constitutional Court held its 132nd plenary session on 19 and 20 January 2023.

As to the decisions adopted at the Plenary session, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:

In the case no. U-16/20 (the request filed by 24 members of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina) the Constitutional Court passed the ruling wherein it established that the Concession Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina, acting in the capacity as the Joint Concession Commission, in terms of Article 4, paragraph 3 and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Law on Concessions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, failed to enforce Partial Decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. U-16/20 of 16 July 2021. The Ruling will be remitted to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In the case no. U-19/22, deciding on the request filed by Mr. Denis Zvizdić, Second Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of filing the request, for review of the constitutionality of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 paragraph 1, subparagraphs c), f) and l) of the Law on Citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Revised Text (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22/16), the Constitutional Court has established that the aforementioned Article of the cited Law is compatible with Articles I(7)(b) and II(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the mentioned decision, the Constitutional Court holds that each state has the right to determine by way of its constitution and laws who is entitled to its citizenship. A state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in prescribing the conditions for obtaining citizenship, and international law does not limit it. In addition, the Constitutional Court does not observe that the legislator, by prescribing the disputed conditions for regaining the citizenship of BiH, exceeded its margin of appreciation or limited some other right of the interested persons, or that the impugned provisions provide for criteria that are as such arbitrary.

In the case no. U-23/22, deciding on the request lodged by Mr. Denis Zvizdić, Second Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the time of filing the request, for review of the constitutionality of Article 5(1)(a) of the Law on the Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/01 and 23/04), the Constitutional Court has established that the mentioned Article, in the part reading: “the common institutions or institution which is administered by or reporting to common institutions”, is not compatible with Article I(2), in conjunction with Article III(1) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and has quashed it. In the mentioned decision, the Constitutional Court has stated, inter alia, that the legislator, in adding the qualifier “common” before the term “institutions”, altered the meaning of Article III(1) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which only recognises the existence of “Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. In this way, the legislator acted contrary to the principle of the rule of law laid down in Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina by altering the substance of the clear constitutional provision of Article III of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In the case no. U-25/22, deciding the request of the Municipal Court in Sarajevo (Judge Edina Kršlak) for review of the constitutionality of the Law on Salaries and Other Compensations in Judicial and Prosecutorial Institutions at the Level of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 90/05, 32/07, 17/13, 5/14, 40/14, 48/15 and 77/20), the Constitutional Court has established that the mentioned Law is not in conformity with Article I (2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the ground that it does not contain the provisions on on-call/standby allowances.

In the case no. U-27/22, the Constitutional Court considered the requests of Messrs. Željko Komšić, a Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Šefik Džaferović, Chair of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of filing the request, for review of the constitutionality of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of FBiH, 79/22 and 80/22) and the Law on Amendments to the Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 67/22). The decision in this case has not been made and the case will be decided at a future plenary session.

U-33/22 – The Constitutional Court rejected the request of the Cantonal Court in Bihać for the review of constitutionality of the Judgement of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. U-20/22 of 27 June 2022 as inadmissible as the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not competent to take a decision.

AP-2264/22 (Patras Moin, citizens of Pakistan) – In this case, the Constitutional Court concluded that there has been no violation of the appellant's rights under Article II(3)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or under Article 2 of the European Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention. The Constitutional Court concludes that it has not been established that the rejection of the appellant's application for asylum and the order to voluntarily leave the territory of BiH would expose the appellant to a real risk of being subjected to persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and a serious threat to life or physical integrity. The Constitutional Court indicated that the court and relevant authorities have assessed the appellant's personal circumstances, the general situation in Pakistan, as well as the conduct of the police and other authorities with regard to the attacks and accusations to which the appellant was previously exposed.

AP-4276/22 („Krajina Borac“ d.o.o. Banja Luka in bankruptcy) – In this case, the Constitutional Court concluded that there has been no violation of the appellant’s right to property in the relevant counter-enforcement proceeding. This is so as the interference with the appellant’s right to property was based on the relevant provisions of the Law on Enforcement Procedure, which the County Court in Banja Luka referred to. In addition, the interference was in the public interest and proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved.

All decisions adopted at today's plenary session will be delivered to the applicants/appellants within one month and published as soon as possible on the website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.