The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its 170th plenary session on 14 and 15 May 2026, at which it decided requests for abstract review of constitutionality and a number of appeals.
Of the decisions adopted at the plenary session, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:
U-19/25 – In this case, the Constitutional Court decided a request of the Municipal Court in Zavidovići, Department in Maglaj, seeking a review of compatibility of Article 163 of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure (Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2/98, 39/04, 73/05, 80/14 - Final provisions of the Law on Inheritance in the FBiH and 11/21) with Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Constitutional Court has found that there is nothing in the request to indicate that Article 163 of the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure is incompatible with Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention, as it is a clear provision that explicitly determines the person required to initiate civil proceedings to resolve issues that have become disputed in non-contentious proceedings. In addition, that regulation does not prevent or hinder access to the court and allows the petitioner to fully exercise his rights within the civil proceedings.
U-24/25 – In this case, the Constitutional Court reviewed compatibility of Article 75 of the Law on Enforcement Procedure (Official Gazette of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/13, 47/17 and 2/21), which stipulates as follows: “(1) At the motion of a person who has sought that the enforcement against a specific object be declared inadmissible, the court shall suspend the enforcement regarding that object if that person makes it plausible that his/her right exists and that the enforcement would cause irreparable or hardly reparable damage, provided that he /she institutes civil proceedings within the specified period, as instructed to do. (2) In the case referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the court may, upon the motion of the enforcement creditor, make the suspension of enforcement conditional upon the provision of security.” The Constitutional Court has found that the contested provision is not compatible with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the reasons for its decision, the Constitutional Court concluded that the disputed legal regulation places an excessive burden on the parties to the proceedings who, in enforcement proceedings, lack procedural safeguards against potential abuse by third parties exercising the right to seek a suspension of enforcement from the enforcement court. In the Constitutional Court’s opinion, the contested provision is not proportionate in relation to all parties in the proceedings because third parties to the enforcement proceedings are granted additional procedural safeguards without reasonable justification - even though the same protection, under the same legal conditions, is already provided to them in the civil proceedings. This, consequently, calls into question the principle of equality of arms of the parties in the enforcement proceedings.
U-25/25 – The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina filed a request with the Constitutional Court, seeking a review Article 27 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 63/23), Article 4 paragraph 1 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/24) and Article 1 of the Law on Amendments to the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 50/24). The contested provisions relate to the transitional provisions of the laws on amendments to the Law on HJPC - - wherein the application of provisions of Article 86 through 86e of the Law on HJCP was prolonged for a specified period. The provisions of Articles 86 though 86e of the Law on the HJCP relate to the obligation on the part of holders of judicial offices to submit declarations on assets and interests, the content of the declarations, transparency, data verification and analysis, conducting additional checks, results of checks, establishing a register of declarations. In this case, the Constitutional Court has found that the contested legal regulation - which prolonged the application of Article 86 through 86e of the Law on HJCP until adequate preconditions for their implementation are established - is compatible with Article I(2) of the Constitution of BiH.
In the reasons for its decision, the Constitutional Court has noted inter alia that the prolongation of application of Article 86 through 86e was accessible because it was published in the official gazettes of BiH. The Constitutional Court has further noted that the disputed norms are sufficiently precise because the prolongation is fixed by the dates from which the application of the legal norms begins, which points to the conclusion that this was a case of clear legal regulations not subject to different interpretations. The Constitutional Court noted that the addressees were able to know their rights and obligations from the disputed legal regulations, and to adjust their behaviour to a degree that was reasonable in the given circumstances. In the circumstances of the case at hand, the Constitutional Court could not draw the conclusion that the disputed legal regulations placed an excessive and disproportionate burden on the addressees. Therefore, the mere fact of prolonging the application of legal norms, as such, does not call into question their quality in terms of the requirements arising from the principle of the rule of law.
As to the request for review of constitutionality of the provisions of Articles 86 and 86i of the Law on HJCP, the Constitutional Court concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to examine compatibility of the mentioned provisions because their application is not decisive for the outcome of the administrative dispute proceedings conducted before the Court of BiH.
U-8/26 – In this case, having deliberated on the request filed by Cantonal Court in Zenica, the Constitutional Court concluded that Article 60(4) of the Law on Higher Education (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 12/22, 15/24 and 5/25) is not compatible with Article 4 and Article 16 paragraph 5 of the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 59/07 and 59/09) and Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina because it regulates the issue of how the senate works, and this issue, in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the Framework Law, is regulated by the statute of a higher education institution and not a cantonal law.
AP-2785/21 – In this case, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the appellant’s right to property because the contested decision does not meet the principle of proportionality for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in a situation where the appellant’s request for reimbursement of necessary costs for initiating enforcement proceedings, which he had valid grounds to initiate, was dismissed. By denying the right to reimbursement of procedural costs, an excessive burden was placed on the appellant, as he is forced to bear the consequences of failures of the public authority, for which there is no reasonable and acceptable justification. Namely, due to the untimely fulfilment of the obligation by the public authority, which was aware of said obligation, the appellant was compelled to initiate the enforcement proceedings in question.
All decisions adopted at this plenary session will be published on the website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and communicated to the appellants no later than one month after their adoption.
