On 10 July 2025, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its 160th plenary session at which adopted the Ruling on Non-Enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court no. U-12/24 and a number of decisions upon appeals. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court decided issues relevant to the work of the Constitutional Court.
Of these decisions, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:
U-12/24 (Ruling on Non-Enforcement) – It was established in the Ruling on Non-Enforcement of the Decision on Admissibility and Merits no. U-12/24 that the Selection and Appointment Commission of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska and Mr. Ilija Tamindžija, President of the Selection and Appointment Commission of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska, acted in contravention of the Decision on Admissibility and Merits, no. U-12/24.The manner of enforcement of Decision no. U-12/24 is determined as follows: the Public Call for Selection of the Republika Srpska Election Commission, no. 02/04.01-1-011-1020-1/25 of 17 June 2025 (Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska, 52/25 of 20 June 2025) and the Decision on the Selection and Appointment Commission of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska, no. 02/04.01-1-011-1020/25 of 17 June 2020, are hereby annulled; all other acts passed pursuant to the repealed Election Law of the Republika Srpska (Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska, 61/24) are hereby quashed; all legislative, executive and judicial institutions of the Republika Srpska, including all official and responsible persons within those institutions of the Republika Srpska or local self-government units or any body of the local self-government units, including official and responsible persons from Republika Srpska performing duties at the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be temporarily banned from taking any action based on the repealed Election Law of the Republika Srpska; the ruling on enforcement shall be communicated to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina for further procedure in accordance with law.
We reiterate that in decision no. U-12/24, the Constitutional Court, having dealt with the requests by Mr. Denis Zvizdić, First Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH and four delegates to the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH, at the time when the requests were filed, took Decision on Admissibility and Merits no. U-12/24, wherein it established that the Election Law of the Republika Srpska was not consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In that decision, the Election Law of the Republika was repealed in its entirety and ceases to have effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska, 61/24. At an earlier point, the Constitutional Court took a Decision on Interim Measure, no. U-12/24 of 24 July 2024, wherein it granted the request of applicant Zvizdić, temporarily rendered ineffective the RS Election Law pending a final decision of the Constitutional Court on the request filed and determined that that decision produced legal effect as of the date of entry into force of the RS Election Law.
AP-1632/21 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – In this case, the Constitutional Court found that the contested decisions of the ordinary courts had been in violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to property because the ordinary courts had failed to clearly and unambiguously answer the question of the ownership status of the contested real estate regarding the fact that it was registered in the land register as the state property and, consequently, whether that real estate was governed by the Law on Agricultural Land of the Federation of BiH, the Law on Forests and/or Law on the Temporary Prohibition of Disposal of the Central Bosnia Canton. These questions were crucial and decisive for the adoption of a decision in the case at hand.
AP-1728/21 (M. K.) – In this case, the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that the appellant's right to a fair trial within a reasonable had been violated as the procedure for exercising the right to an old-age pension had lasted in excess of 12 years, with the Cantonal Court contributing the most to the length of the procedure.
AP-2086/22 (N. M.) – In this case, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the right to property because in the present case, there was a disproportionate interference with the appellant's property by obliging him to retroactively return the paid amounts of pensions due to an error by the public authority. As a result of this, he had to bear an excessive burden that violated the principle of a fair balance between the general public interest and the appellant's interest.
AP-3523/22 (Municipality of Novo Sarajevo) – In this case, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial when the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo had arbitrarily concluded that the plaintiff had been in possession of the contested real estate for 20 years and hence acquired the ownership right by adverse possession. The Constitutional Court noted that the case file indicated beyond doubt that the requirement of duration of possession for the acquisition of ownership right by adverse possession had not been not fulfilled by the plaintiff at the time when the lawsuit had been filed.
AP-2678/23 (Alma Destanović) – In this case, the Constitutional Court found that a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (prohibition of being subjected to torture or degrading treatment) resulting from the failure of the relevant authorities (the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sarajevo Canton and Cantonal Court in Sarajevo) to conduct an effective investigation into the appellant’s allegations of inhuman and degrading treatment during the time of taking her to the premisses of the Prosecutor’s Office because the police had used excessive force.
AP-3005/24 (E. H.) – In this case, the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the appellant’s right to liberty and security because the appellant was not allowed to be heard before the court at the time of the initial confinement for treatment, during the treatment at the Forensic Psychiatry Institute in Sokolac or during proceedings before the Basic Court in Sokolac, which issued the contested ruling, where the court also failed to take all appropriate measures at its disposal to facilitate such a hearing.
All decisions adopted at the plenary session will be published on the website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and delivered to the appellants/applicants no later than one month after their adoption.
