The appellant filed his appeal on 3 October 2005. This was following his receipt of the referenced decision of the Commission for Human Rights for Bosnia and Herzegovina on 28 April 2005. The said decision dealt with his request for payment of his old foreign currency savings. The challenged decisions of the ordinary courts dealing with the same issue do not change the very essence of the matter and the instant case concerns the same proceedings. Accordingly, the Commission has already discussed the issue of violation of the mentioned appellant’s rights and adopted decisions on admissibility and merits in this regard. The Commission also established that there was a violation of the appellant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6(1) of the European Convention. Therefore, the appellant abused his right to file an appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2060/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraphs 10 and 11
Bearing in mind that the appellants failed to lodge the request with the Supreme Court for judicial protection against the Customs Administration’s Ruling 02/1-2 no. P/II-134/03 of 25 June 2003 although, according to the delivered decision of the Constitutional Court no. U 19/00, they had knowledge that it represents an effective legal remedy and that there is obligation of the Supreme Court to take a decision regardless of the relevant provisions of the Law on Minor Offences, the Constitutional Court concluded that, given the circumstances of this case, the appellants abused their right to file an appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. U 157/03 of 25 June 2007, paragraph 18
In the instant case, after the adoption of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the appellant has transferred the ownership right over the real estate in question to his father by concluding the Gift Agreement and thus he managed to make the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s judgment difficult because the Constitutional Court, based on the facts that have been purposely concealed by the appellant, adopted the Decision on Interim Measure whereby it postponed the enforcement of the challenged judgment. Therefore, it follows that the meaning and the purpose of the appeal was to obstruct the proceedings not only before the Constitutional Court but also before the Basic Court in the course of the enforcement proceedings and not to refute the constitutionality of the challenged judgment of the Supreme Court and protection of the constitutional rights of the appellant. This definitely constitutes abuse of the right to file an appeal. In view of the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court recalls that it is not called upon to review the merits of appeals which have been filed by means of abusing the “the right to file an appeal” because that would require unnecessary work which is incompatible with its real function (see, mutatis mutandis, Decision on Admissibility of the former European Commission for Human Rights in case M. vs. the United Kingdom, Application no. 13284/87 of 15 October 1987).
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1001/06 of 13 September 2007, paragraphs 12 to 14
The Constitutional Court notes that the first appellant, as a notary who processed documents enclosed to the motion for the registration of change in the court’s register for the second appellant, as the subject of registration entry, filed his appeal first with the second instance court and subsequently the appeal with the Constitutional Court on his own behalf as well stating that the challenged rulings have also violated his constitutional rights. In this connection, the Constitutional Court observes that the first appellant has previously lodged the appeals with a request for protection of his constitutional rights with the Constitutional Court on his behalf in the same factual and legal situations, where he, as notary, processed documents in the proceedings in which he did not have the role of a party but acted as notary within the scope of his public authority. Given that, in the relevant cases, the first appellant was not a party to the proceedings before the ordinary courts, the Constitutional Court rejected the appeals as lodged by unauthorised person in accordance with provisions of Article VI(3)(b) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 16(1) and (4)(5) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (see the Constitutional Court, Decisions on Admissibility nos. AP 413/12 of 23 February 2012 and AP 4414/10 of 8 December 2010, available on www.ustavnisud.ba). As the first appellant is familiar with the case-law of the Constitutional Court and obviously has not been lodging the appeals for the protection of his own constitutional rights, the appellant’s actions in the aforementioned manner do not indicate the existence of actual intent to exercise the protection of his constitutional rights in the appellate proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court holds that such a behaviour of the appellant creates an additional unnecessary work for the Constitutional Court which is incompatible with its real function of the human rights protection of the appellants (see, mutatis mutandis, Decision on Admissibility of the former European Commission for Human Rights in case M. vs. the United Kingdom, Application no. 13284/87 of 15 October 1987). Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concludes that the first appellant abused the right to appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 698/13 of 10 April 2014, paragraphs 6 and 7
The Constitutional Court recalls that, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant used in his correspondence with the Court a particularly offensive, threatening or provocative language – whether concerning formulations relating to the respondent state, its representative, respondent state’s authorities, the Court itself, the judges thereof, the Secretariat or members thereof – this is abuse of the right to application (see, European Court, Řehák v. Czech Republic, decision of 18 May 2004, Application no. 67208/01; Duringer and Grunge v. France, decision of 4 February 2003, Application nos. 61164/00 and 18589/02). By connecting the aforementioned to the appellant’s allegations made in the submission dated 28 April 2019, the Constitutional Court indicates that in the present case the appellant abused the right to lodge an appeal (see the Constitutional Court, Decision on Admissibility No. AP-438/19 of 24 April 2018, available on the website of the Constitutional Court www.ustavnisud.ba)
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 378/19 of 11 June 2019, paragraph 7.