The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its 171st Plenary session held online today.
During the session the Constitutional Court decided a number of appeals alleging a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. In case no. AP-1340/23, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to a fair trial in relation to adoption of a decision within a reasonable time, considering that the proceedings have lasted 12 years and 7 months. The largest contributing factors are referral of the case for reconsideration and the length of the proceedings before the administrative bodies that failed to act efficiently and in line with the standards of the right to a fair trial. Right to a fair trial within a reasonable time was also violated in case no. AP-364/23. In this case, the procedure of review of lawfulness of use of the right to disability pension (relevant to the appellant) lasted 9 years and about 10 months.
The Constitutional Court rendered a number of decisions rejecting appeals on grounds of inadmissibility under Article 18 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (appeal lodged after a deadline, non-exhaustion of legal remedies available under law, ratione materiae incompatibility with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina etc).
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court adopted a number of decisions rejecting appeals as inadmissible for being manifestly (prima facie) unfounded. Specifically, in case no. AP-3015/21 the Constitutional Court rejected an appeal lodged against a Ruling of the Cantonal Court ordering the appellant to pay a court fee for an extraordinary appeal. In the reasons, the Cantonal Court in Livno noted that Article 1 of the Law on Court Fees of Canton 10 stipulated that this Law regulated issues related to court fees and determined the procedure and payment of court fees and associated issues in the proceedings before the courts in Canton 10. it also noted that Article 1 of the Law on Court Fees in the Proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina stipulated that the Law prescribed court fees in the proceedings before the Supreme Court as well as the method of their payment. It further indicated that a civil procedure was initiated before the Municipal Court in Livno and that the appellant lodged an extraordinary appeal against the Cantonal Court's ruling. Therefore, as explained by the court, this was not a matter of proceedings initiated before the Supreme Court, and provisions of the cantonal Law on Court Fees were applicable to the present case. Ultimately, the Cantonal Court held that the appellant's argument that a court fee would be paid twice were not well-founded. The Constitutional Court noted in its decision that the Cantonal Court clearly explained why the appellant's argument about paying a court fee twice were unfounded, finding no arbitrariness in the Cantonal Court's decision.
A number of requests seeking interim measures were examined and dismissed at today's session.
All the decisions adopted at this plenary session will be posted on the website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and will be served on the appellants within one month after the date of their adoption.
