On 24 and 25 September 2026, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held its 174th plenary session, at which it decided requests for constitutional review and a large number of appeals and requests for interim measures.
Of the decisions adopted at the plenary session, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:
U-2/26 - Having deliberated on the request filed by 27 members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court established that there is a dispute in respect of the issuance of the following documents: the Document of the Urban Planning Service of the Municipality of Vareš no. 02/3-1633/21 of 17 June 2021; Decision of the Federation Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry no. UP-408-22/1-155/21 KK of 31 May 2021; the Document of the Federation Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry no. UP-I-08-22-3064/22 KK of 3 November 202; Decision of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry of Zenica-Doboj Canton no. 05-22-12651-7/22 of 3 March 2023; Easement Agreement no. 05-22-12651-8/22 of 10 April 2023; Concession Agreement no. 04-18-21389-1/13 of 12 March 2013 with their respective annexes as follows, Annex I no. 04-18-21389-2/13 of 8 October 2013; Annex II no. 04-18-21389-3/2018 of 19 February 2018; Annex III no. 04-18-21389/32018 of 14 November 2018; Annex IV no. 04-18-21389-4/2018 of 28 January 2020; Annex V no. 04-18-14461-1/20 of 3 December 2020 and Annex VI no. 04-14-5757-2/22 of 19 July 2022, and Decisions of the Zenica-Doboj Canton Government nos. 02-18-21389/12 of 28 September 2012 (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 15/12); 02-18-16470/18 of 2 November 2018 (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 15/18); 02-14-14461/20 of 26 August 2020 (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 16/20); 02-14-14461/20 of 12 October 2020 (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 18/20); 02-14-5359/22 of 31 March 2022 (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 9/22) and 02-14-5914/23 of 11 April 2023 (Official Gazette of the Zenica-Doboj Canton, 6/23). The Constitutional Court concluded that the contested documents are not compatible with Articles I(2) and III(3)(b) of the Constitution of BiH because public authorities lacking jurisdiction disposed of State property contrary to the Law on the Temporary Prohibition on Disposal of State Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina, although the issue of State property has not been resolved at the State level, and without the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office, as the legal representative of the titleholder of State property.
Pursuant to Article 61(4) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court ordered the Federation Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry, the Urban Planning Service of the Municipality of Vareš, the Government of Zenica-Doboj Canton, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Zenica-Doboj Canton and the Ministry of Economy of Zenica-Doboj Canton to review whether the contested acts falling within their respective competences comply with the Law on the Temporary Prohibition on Disposal of State Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18/05, 29/06, 85/06, 32/07, 41/07, 74/07, 99/07, 58/08 and 22/22), with the mandatory involvement of the Attorney General’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to take steps to set aside any acts found not to comply with the Law on the Temporary Prohibition on Disposal of State Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18/05, 29/06, 85/06, 32/07, 41/07, 74/07, 99/07, 58/08 and 22/22).
U-10/26 – Having deliberated on the request filed by Denis Zvizdić, First Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for deciding a dispute between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Entity of the Republika Srpska, the Constitutional Court has established that the acts and activities of the Republika Srpska undertaken with a view to executing: budget item number 488100 of the Budget of the Republika Srpska for the year 2026 “Transfers to the representative authorities of the Republika Srpska abroad” within unit name “Ministry for European Integration and International Cooperation” in the amount of BAM 15,000,000.00, which is an integral part of a Decision of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska on the adoption of the 2026 Budget (Official Gazette of the RS, 114/25); and budget item number 448100 of the Second Revision of the 2025 Budget “Transfers to the representative authorities of the Republika Srpska abroad” within unit name “Ministry for European Integration and International Cooperation” in the amount of BAM 49,000,000.00, which is an integral part of a Decision of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska on the adoption of the Second Revision of the 2025 Budget (Official Gazette of the RS, 109/25) in connection with the Consultancy Agreement signed on 6 September 2025 between Mladen Filipović, Director of the Republika Srpska Representative Authority in Vienna, Republic of Austria, and Ari Ben-Menashe, President of the legal entity Dickens & Madson Canada Inc., and other similar agreements the purpose of which is to achieve goals found by the Constitutional Court to be incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are not consistent with Article I(2) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article III(3)(b) of the Constitution of BiH and Article VI(5) of the Constitution of BiH. Pursuant to Article 61(4) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of BiH, by this decision the Constitutional Court prohibits all payments from the Budget of the Republika Srpska in connection with the Consultancy Agreement signed on 6 September 2025 between Mladen Filipović, Director of the Republika Srpska Representative Authority in Vienna, Republic of Austria, and Ari Ben-Menashe, President of the legal entity Dickens & Madson Canada Inc., and any other lobbying acts and activities on behalf of the Republika Srpska through lobbying agencies for goals that contravene the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the decisions of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Courts orders the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska, the Government of the Republika Srpska and other competent bodies in the Republika Srpska, as well as all official or responsible persons in those institutions, including the Republika Srpska representative authorities abroad, to discontinue all activities involving payments based on the Consultancy Agreement signed on 6 September 2025 between Mladen Filipović, Director of the Republika Srpska Representative Authority in Vienna, Republic of Austria, and Ari Ben-Menashe, President of the legal entity Dickens & Madson Canada Inc., and budget funding of lobbying services for goals that contravene the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the decisions of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
U-5/26 – In this case the Constitutional Court deliberated on the request of the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a review of compatibility of Article 12(1)(c) and (3) and Article 13(4) of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 59/09 and 66/16). The applicant deemed that the contested provisions are not harmonised with Article I(2) in conjunction with Article VI(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they do not clarify the competence of ordinary courts to adjudicate special lawsuits for protection from discrimination, in cases where the Constitutional Court has established in its decision that a certain provision of a general legal act is discriminatory. The applicant also argued that the aforementioned provisions do not stipulate whether ordinary courts can determine a provision of law to be discriminatory on the grounds referred to in Article 2(1) of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination even before the Constitutional Court determines whether such provision violates the non-discrimination clause of the Constitution.
Having deliberated on the request, the Constitutional Court points out that Article 12, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c) and paragraph (3), and Article 13, paragraph (4) of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination are prescribed in a clear, precise, and predictable fashion, and possess sufficient quality to be regarded as a “law” within the meaning of the standards of rule of law. The Constitutional Court also deems that these provisions do not prevent ordinary courts from respecting, when interpreting and applying thereof, the constitutional competence of the Constitutional Court and the final and binding nature of the decisions of the Constitutional Court guaranteed under Article VI(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Considering the foregoing, the Constitutional Court concludes that Article 12, paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (c) and paragraph (3), and Article 13, paragraph (4) of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination are in conformity with Article I(2) in conjunction with Article VI(5) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
AP-2308/26 – In this case the Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the appeal lodged by Pokret za Modernu i Aktivnu Krajinu (PoMAK) against the ruling of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. S1 3 Iž 054901 26 Iž of 4 June 2026, in relation to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court of BiH issued a ruling dismissing the appellant’s appeal challenging paragraph 2 of the enacting clause of the decision of the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the BiH CEC”) dated 29 May 2026. Under paragraph 2 of the enacting clause of the BiH CEC decision, the appellant’s application for participation in the elections for a body of authority - the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina - was rejected. In the reasons given in its ruling, the Court of BiH pointed out that it followed from the information in the case file that the BiH CEC determined in a proper and lawful manner that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient number of signatures of support within the meaning of Article 4.11 of the Election Law and Article 9(7) of the Rulebook. The Constitutional Court has concluded in this case that the disputed decisions did not violate the appellant’s right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, the “passive” aspect thereof, because in their decisions the BiH CEC and the Court of BiH gave clear and sufficient reasons in support of their findings based on which they adopted the disputed decisions.
AP-2389/26 – In this case the Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded the appeal lodged by the political party Snaga naroda – Ramo Isak against the ruling of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. S1 3 Iž 054929 26 Iž of 5 June 2026, and the decision of the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 06-1-07-3-1086/26 of 3 June 2026, with regard to allegations of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Under paragraph 2 of the disputed decision, the CEC dismissed the appellant’s application for participation in the 2026 General Elections, for elections for the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska and the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The CEC stated in the reasoning that, having reviewed the submitted forms with voters’ signatures of support, it identified irregularities of the signatures on the form, and concluded that the statutory requirements for certification of the appellant’s application for the levels of authority under paragraph 2 of the decision were not complied with. By its ruling of 5 June 2026, the Court of BiH dismissed the appellant’s lawsuit filed against the CEC decision. The Constitutional Court has concluded in this case that the disputed decisions were not in violation of the appellant’s right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention in terms of the “passive” aspect thereof, because the CEC and the Court of BiH gave clear and sufficient reasons in support of their findings based on which they adopted the disputed decisions.
All decisions adopted at the 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 BiH.
