Access to a court

By declining its competence to re-examine the facts of the case, the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska violated the appellant’s right of access to court of full jurisdiction as set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision No. U 7/00 of 18 and 19 August 2000, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6/01; administrative proceedings

As the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska, on three occasions, referred the case back to the administrative authorities, the appellant had no possibility to obtain a decision on merits on his civil rights. Consequently, the appellant was not secured an effective access to court, as required by Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision No. U 15/00 of 15 and 16 December 2000, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6/01

Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention provides the right of access to court of full jurisdiction as well as the right to have the court adopt a Decision on Merits in order to decide on a claim for repossession of an unlawfully taken apartment, even in a case where the pertinent administrative proceedings are pending.
•    Decision No. U 24/00 of 31 August 2001, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1/02

There is a violation of the right of access to court in cases related to housing issues where the Municipal and Cantonal Courts, by referring the case to the administrative authorities, rejected to decide on the merits of the case for the alleged lack of jurisdiction. The administrative proceedings, which are pending, cannot be the reason for which the Decision on Merits has not been taken.
•    Decision No. U 32/02 of 24 October 2003, paragraphs 21 and 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6/04; the administrative proceedings, the transfer of the occupancy right to the person who provides support; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is a violation of the right to access to court in case where the court failed to decide on the appellant’s civil rights.
•    Decision No. U 64/02 of 24 October 2003, paragraph 48, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina,  8/04; the  determination of civil rights in ordinary proceedings following a failure to satisfy the obligations determined in non- contentious settlement; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court notes that, by failing to decide the merits of the appellant’s complaint, the Municipal Court denied the appellant’s right of access to court and, thus, violated Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention. Moreover, this violation was corrected neither upon the appeal lodged with the Cantonal Court nor upon the revision-appeal lodged with the Supreme Court.
•    Decision No. U 28/00 of 28 November 2003, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/04; proceedings to obtain compensation for damages against UN and UNPROFOR

The States have a discretionary power to organize, on their own motion, the judicial system securing the right of access to court for all citizens when it relates to “the determination of a civil right or obligation”. Thus, the States are entitled to seek from every person to comply with the relevant domestic legal regulations governing the proceedings before the competent authorities. The aforementioned relates primarily to the regulations governing the competence of the authorities and the admissibility of legal remedies.
•    Decision on the Merits No. U 25/03 of 21 January 2004, paragraph 22, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04; civil proceedings for determination of the property right over “military apartments”

Each person, whose rights are directly or indirectly violated by measures issued by administrative authorities, is entitled to access to court of full jurisdiction in order to secure the protection of his/her rights.
•    Decision on the Merits No. U 25/03 of 21 January 2004, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/04; civil proceedings for determination of the property right over “military apartments”

In the challenged judgments, the ordinary courts decided on the appellant’s request for institution of the investigation proceedings against a third party. The appellant did not complain about the court decision on his guilt. Given that the right of access to court provided for in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention does not include the right to initiate criminal proceedings against a third person, Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention is not applicable in this case.
•    Decision on the Merits No. U 63/03 of 27 February 2004, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 11/04

The Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the request for judicial review against the decision of the customs administrative authority, as a second instance body, and thereby denied the appellants’ right to access to court given that the determination of a civil right or a criminal charge by an administrative authority, which does not satisfy the requirements of an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, must be subject to judicial review by an independent and impartial tribunal with full jurisdiction.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 10/03 of 26 March 2004, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/04

There is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realized in case where the appellants, the sister and the grandfather of underage children, by the challenged court decisions, were denied the right of access to court for not having the standing to sue in the proceedings for termination of parental right since the Law on Non-Contentious Proceedings stipulates that only adopter, foster parent or guardian of a child have the standing.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 62/03 of 21 July 2004, paragraphs 22 and 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/05

Given the restrictive interpretation of Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Code, which regulates the right to lodge a lawsuit for a judicial determination, there is a violation of the appellant’s right of access to court provided for in Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 219/03 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 21, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/04; the lawsuit seeking a judicial determination that Elektroprivreda is not entitled to reimbursement for the appellant’s debt

In case where during the entire proceedings the appellants did not receive a decision on the merits on their property claim within the period longer than three years, it follows that the appellants did not have a substantive access to court, apart from the formal one, and that by the challenged decisions their right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention was violated.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 130/02 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/04; proceedings upon a lawsuit for trespassing user filed by a co-owner against a temporary user

The fact that the appellant succeeded in obtaining that the lower courts rendered the challenged decisions indisputably corroborates that the appellant in the present case exercised his right of access to court. The reason being that the lower courts considered the appellant’s claim and decided on the merits of this case, which, of itself, rules out a violation of the right of access to court safeguarded by Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention. Actually, there is a violation of the right of access to court in cases where courts reject on procedural grounds to decide on the merits of a dispute. However, this is not the case here.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 218/02 of 23 July 2004, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 43/04; the alleged impossibility to institute civil proceedings because of the war – the statute of limitations – the Brčko District of BiH

The first instance court, in accordance with Article 323 of the Civil Procedure Codes, should have stayed the delivery of the appeal to the second instance court until the adoption of a decision on the proposal on the supplement to the judgment and until the expiry of the time-limit for filing an appeal. However, the first instance court referred the whole case-file to the second instance court for a decision upon the appeal. Thereby, the appellant’s right of access to court provided for in Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention has been violated.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 53/03 of 26 August 2004, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48/04; civil proceedings for compensation as a result of unpaid salaries

The appellant’s right of access to court provided for in Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention is not violated as she exercised the right of access to court of full jurisdiction by bringing an action requesting the establishment of the right to reinstatement into the apartment over in which the appellant and her husband, prior to their divorce, had lived as the co-holders of the occupancy right.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 107/03 of 29 September 2004, paragraphs 25 to 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 54/04; the recognition of the foreign decision

The appellant’s right of access to court provided for in Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention is violated given that the domestic legal system does not provide a judicial review by a judicial body, which has full jurisdiction, against customs authorities, at least in one instance, in the case that concerns the appellant’s rights under Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. U 106/03 of 27 October 2004, paragraph 38, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 23/05

There is a violation of the right of access to court as the appellant’s lawsuit is rejected and she is directed to claim damages with the State War Damage Commission. The ordinary courts should have accepted their jurisdiction on the basis of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention and examined the grounds of the appellants’ claim within the meaning of the applicable provisions of the Law on Ownership Relations and the Law on Obligations. Finally, the courts should have decided on the merits as to whether or not the respondents are liable.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 98/03 of 27 October 2004, paragraphs 36 to 41, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15/05;
•    Decision on Admissibility and  Merits No. AP 464/04 of 17 February 2005, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 40/05; impossibility to enforce the legally binding decision awarding non-pecuniary damages for death of close family members; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is a violation of the right of access to court as an element of the right to a fair trial if the law or any other act of the authorities deprive execution of a legally valid court judgment, when such a law or other act places “an excessive burden on the individual” which does not satisfy the requirement of proportionality between a public interest of the community and fundamental rights of an individual.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 969/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/05;
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 1094/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 43, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 45/06;
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 276/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 39, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 37/06;
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 487/05 of 20 December 2005, paragraph 413, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/06

The right to equality before the law also includes the possibility of equal access to court for all citizens in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the right securing that the competent courts decide on the citizens’ civil rights under equal conditions in proceedings stipulated by law.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 402/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; proceedings related to the payment of salary, conduct of the Supreme Court in dispute not exceeding the value of BAM 15,000; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is a violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention given that the appellant’s claim is not decided in its entirety in court proceedings. Thereby, he is deprived of his right of access to court.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 225/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05

The essence of the appellant’s “right of access to court” stipulated in Article 6 of the European Convention is denied as his claim in part related to the respondent’s obligation to pay contributions is dismissed.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 311/04 of 22 April 2005, paragraph 33, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 60/05; the appellant’s claim related to the payment of contributions is dismissed for alleged lack of standing

There is a violation of the appellant’s right of access to court as an element of the right to a fair trial in case where the civil proceedings are suspended until the completion of the criminal proceedings, which have been completed by the legally binding decision but the proceedings upon the petition for reopening the proceedings are pending.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 70/05 of 22 April 2005, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 36/05

In the present case where the ordinary courts rejected as untimely the appellants’ lawsuits filed for the protection of their rights arising from labor relations, there is the public interest in restricting the rights based on the stipulated time limits. The public interest is reflected in the efficient functioning of the legal system and legal certainty. A failure to meet the stipulated time limits made it impossible for the ordinary courts to decide on the merits of the appellants’ claims, which is not contrary to the requirements of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1110/04 of 18 May 2005, paragraph 36, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 47/06

There is a violation of the right of access to court in case where ordinary courts suspend the civil proceedings, which are instituted after the criminal proceedings have been completed by a legally binding judgment, on the ground that the petition for reopening the proceedings has been filed.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 691/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 25 to 27, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27/06; compensation for damages; civil proceedings upon a property claim filed after the criminal proceedings completed by the legally binding decision are suspended as the petition for reopening the proceedings has been filed; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The right of access to court shall be applicable pending the realization of the civil right determined. Otherwise, the effective proceedings determining the civil rights or obligations would be illusory if the civil right cannot be exercised in the subsequent enforcement proceedings.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 552/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 9; Decision No. U 38/02 of 19 December 2003, paragraphs 50 and 51, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8/04; a labour dispute; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is a violation of the right of access to court, which is an integral part of the right to a fair trial if the enforcement of legally binding court decision is impeded by law or by any other act of public authorities when such a law or other act places “an excessive burden on individuals”, whereby the requirement of proportionality between the public interest and basic individual rights is not met.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 703/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 47, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32/05; failure to enforce the ruling on enforcement, the payment of debt incurred in wartime; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The appellant’s right of access to court is violated as the Basic Court, for a period of four years, failed to take any action aimed at processing the lawsuit. The aforementioned constitutes a violation of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 994/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4/06

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to secure the appellants’ right of access to court. Thereby, there is a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 130/04 of 2 December 2005, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/06; old foreign currency savings

In cases where there is a violation of the right of access to court, as a precondition to find the violation, it is necessary that the court has rejected on the procedural grounds to decide on the merits of a dispute. However, this is not the case here.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1000/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 10

There is no violation of the right to a fair trial in case where the competent administrative authority takes a decision and the Supreme Court reviews that decision in proceedings upon a request for judicial review.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 676/04 of 20 December 2005, paragraphs 30 and 34, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06; administrative proceedings, the appellant complained of a violation of the right to a fair trial as the administrative authority and not the court decided in the second instance; there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

There is the public interest in restricting the rights based on the stipulated time limits. The public interest is reflected in the efficient functioning of the legal system and legal certainty. A failure to meet the stipulated time limits makes it impossible for the ordinary courts to decide the merits of the claim, which is not contrary to the requirements of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 85/06 of 15 February 2006, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 38/07; administrative proceedings, a failure to meet the preclusive time limits; there is no violation of the right to a fair trial

There is no violation of the right of access to court in case where the appellant, by filing a lawsuit in administrative proceedings, failed to request that the court hold a public hearing and the challenged decision was taken by the court sitting in panel.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 908/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41/06

Though the preliminary request for enforcement was dismissed by a legally binding judgment, the matter was not validly concluded. Actually, the preliminary request to allow enforcement was premature as it was filed before the fulfilment of the condition set out in the enforcement document.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 1202/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 24, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 61/06; enforcement proceedings, non-enforcement of the legally binding decision, access to a court

The ordinary court’s failure to take any action within the much longer time limits than those prescribed by the mandatory regulations and take any steps to remedy obstacles in the work of the courts, including no obligation on the courts’ side to inform citizens about the order in which their civil rights and obligations are to be determined, constitute the violation of the right to a fair trial in relation to the right of access to court stipulated in Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1199/06 of 13 June 2006, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/06;
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 957/06 of 13 June 2006, paragraphs 26 and 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 67/06; civil proceedings, the court failed to take any action upon the lawsuit

There is no violation of the appellants’ right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention as a result of the limitations on the right of access to court on the basis of the Law on Achieving Rights to Compensation for Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damage Arising out of the Combat Period as of 20 May 1992 to 19 June 1996, based on which the competent courts relinquished the cases for further proceedings to the Attorney’s Office of the Republika Srpska.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1257/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraphs 30 and 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7/07; civil proceedings, war damages; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Republika Srpska’ failure to secure that its bodies satisfy the legal obligations and thus make it possible for the appellants to have their legally binding decisions enforced constitutes the breach of the right to a fair trial.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1431/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraphs 54 to 56, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 9/06; enforcement proceedings

There is a violation of the right of access to court in case where the Government of the Republika Srpska fails to enact within the legal time limit or after the expiry of that time limit an Act regulating the procedure, conditions and priorities to acquire the right to war veterans allowance and, thereby, it prevents the enforcement of the legally binding judgment.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 231/06 of 13 September 2007, paragraphs 36 to 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 86/07; enforcement proceedings; payment of war veterans allowance; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The County Court arbitrarily applied the Law on Acquiring the Right to Damage Compensation by making the reference to the provisions of the said Law. Practically, the County Court declared itself not competent to decide on the defendants’ appeal against the judgment rendered in civil proceedings instituted upon the appellant’s lawsuit, though the appellant’s claim does not fall within the time period stipulated in the mentioned law (from 20 May 1992 to 19 June 1996), nor does the provisions of the Law on Obligations regulating damage compensation constitute the legal basis of the claim. Thus, the County Court made it impossible for the appellant to exercise the right of access to court, which includes the right according to which the appellant is entitled to have his/her claim decided by the legally finding judgment rendered in efficient court proceedings conducted by the competent court.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 430/06 of 13 December 2007, paragraph 28, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12/08; civil proceedings related to the unlawful gain, the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

There is a violation of the right of access to court in case where the Supreme Court rejected, as inadmissible, the appellant’s claim in administrative proceedings, although the facts of the case indicated that the claim was admissible and that the Supreme Court should have acted upon the appeal pursuant to Article 8 of the Law on Legal Disputes, which provides that an administrative dispute may be instituted against the “silence of administration”.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2329/06 of 13 May 2008, paragraph 23, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 49/08; administrative dispute, repossession of the apartment; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The appellant’s right of access to court is violated for the ordinary court’s failure to decide on the appellant’s request to take part in litigation as intervener on the defendant’s side. Thus, the ordinary courts did not allow the appellant to take part at the stage of litigation in which he could have an effective i.e. essential access to court and enjoy all guaranties of the right to a fair trial.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2394/06 of 4 September 2008, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 91/08; civil proceedings, access to court; a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention in respect of an effective access to courts as a result of the lack of the free legal assistance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where in the proceedings for determination of civil rights, which were important for the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the relevant case was complex as well as the relevant law and the proceedings and that the appellant was unable effectively to represent himself in the relevant proceedings.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2944/08 of 21 July 2011, paragraph 69, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 99/11; free legal assistance, access to a court, there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there is no violation of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention in respect of the right of access to a court in the situation where the appellants did not personally attend the proceedings, as they were represented by a guardian for special cases – a lawyer, who protected their rights and interests in the relevant proceedings, and the appointment of the guardian for special cases (in the situation where no information about the appellants’ addresses was available to the ordinary courts) was carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Family Law.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3627/08 of 23 September 2011, paragraph 36; temporary guardian, access to a court, there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there is a violation of the right of access to a court, as an element of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the court, having jurisdiction to decide on the factual and legal issues, failed to decide the appeal guaranteed under law, which had been lodged with that court, so that no final decision on the appellant’s right was rendered.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3806/09 of 19 July 2012, paragraph 31, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 79/12; payment of tax obligation against the taxpayer’s property, a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court concludes that monetary claims referred to in the provisions of the Law on the Rights of Veterans and their Families are a kind of social assistance that public authorities, within their margin of appreciation, regulate in accordance with the needs of the society, on the one hand, and in accordance with the possibilities and opportunities of the social community in question, on the other hand. Therefore, the scope and content of those rights as well as related mechanisms fall entirely within the margin of appreciation of the public authorities. As regards the specific issue, the Constitutional Court notes that the realisation of certain monetary claims in the area of social protection of veterans and their families in the Federation of BiH is regulated by a special law, which, as lex specialis, stipulates that this matter falls entirely under the jurisdiction of administrative authorities. Consequently, the Constitutional Court holds that the ordinary courts, declaring that they lacked jurisdiction to act upon the appellants’ motions for forcible enforcement of the appellants’ claims established in administrative proceedings based on the Law on the Rights of Veterans and their Families, did not violate their right of access to a court, as an element of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 4609/12 of 12 June 2013, paragraphs 30 and 31; forcible enforcement related to the costs of proceedings accrued in the proceedings  to  determine  the  right  to  personal  disability  allowance;  there is no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court concludes that there is a violation of the appellant’s right of access to a court, as an element of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, as the appellant’s request for postponement of the hearing, which was scheduled for the second day of religious holiday, was not recognised as justified by the Municipal Court. In fact, the specific case related to the justified request for the postponement of hearing and the ordinary courts should have taken into account the core values of a multicultural society.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 2691/10 of 22 October 2013, paragraph 35, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 92/13; request to postpone a main hearing scheduled and held on the second day of the religious holiday; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention established

The Constitutional Court notes that the challenged decisions to terminate the proceedings are based on the provisions of Article 4 of the Law on Implementation of Annex G of the Agreement on Succession Issues on Territory of the Republika Srpska, which was applicable at that time. However, the Constitutional Court recalls that it established by its Decision No. U 16/11 of 13 July 2012 that the Law on Implementation of Annex G of the Agreement on Succession Issues on Territory of the Republika Srpska as a whole was incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the Constitutional Court holds that it is necessary to order the County Commercial Court to continue and to finalize the relevant proceedings without further delay. In view of the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged decisions are in violation of the appellant’s right of access to a court, as an element of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 5657/10 of 15 January 2014, paragraphs 31 and 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19/14; request by the appellant with a seat on the territory of another State (the Republic of Croatia, as one of the SFRY successor states, for solution of property- legal relation; termination of proceedings; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention established

The Constitutional Court concludes that there is a violation of the right of access to a court, as a part of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, where the restriction established by law, which is reflected in the payment of court taxes, as a requirement to act upon a lawsuit, is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – the payment of court taxes as public revenues, as it infringes the very essence of the right of access to a court.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3991/11 of 21 October 2014, paragraph 26, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 93/14; court taxes; the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention established

The Constitutional Court observes that the appellant claims that the contested decisions violated his right to court protection. In this connection, the Constitutional Court notes that the ordinary courts concluded that the legal requirements for presumed withdrawal of lawsuit were met within the meaning of Article 97(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, which prescribes that “if a duly summoned plaintiff fails to appear without justified reason at the court sitting for the main hearing, it shall be considered that s/he has withdrawn the complaint“. The Constitutional Court notes that the ratio of that provision is that the civil proceedings can be initiated solely by the plaintiff’s will and it is presumed that the plaintiff is interested in completing the proceedings within the shortest possible time limit and without delays. The plaintiff’s failure to appear at the hearing means in principle that he does not have interest in pursuing the proceedings and that he wishes to withdraw his lawsuit. Such a limitation on the right of access to court serves the legitimate aim consisting of cost-effectiveness of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court holds that the contested decisions did not jeopardize the essence of the appellant’s right of access to court, i.e. the fair balance has been struck between the means used and aims sought to be achieved as the appellant deprived himself of the opportunity to have his case decided on the merits in court proceedings. The fact that the length of the proceedings was unreasonably excessive, which amounted to the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the work of the courts, does not discharge him of obligation to act in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 900/12 of 16 March 2016, paragraph 53; withdrawal of lawsuit, no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The provisions providing that the party who is not attorney or did not pass bar exam must be represented by an attorney or representative referred to in Article 301b., paragraph 2, of the Civil Procedure Code in the proceedings upon revision-appeal as an extraordinary legal remedy, which is used with legal restrictions laid down in the provisions of Article 237(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, do not restrict the protection of the party’s rights. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, given the complexity of the proceedings, importance of the dispute, value of the dispute and efficiency of the proceedings before the highest judicial institution of the Entity, a request for representation actually protects the rights of the parties as that protection requires professional knowledge and experience, thus, making it possible for the rights and obligations of the parties to decide in an effective and reasonable manner. Accordingly, in the present case, the Constitutional Court holds that the legal restrictions laid down in Article 247(2) of the Civil procedure Code did not amount to the violation of the appellant’s right of access to court as a segment of the right to a fair trial as it related to the restriction before the highest judicial institution of the Entity and as it is proportional and necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve the aim of restriction. Thus, there has been no interference with the safeguarded rights.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 382/17 of 10 May 2017, paragraphs 34 and 35, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 39/17; representation of the parties in the proceedings upon revision-appeal; there has been no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH

The Constitutional Court holds that in the present case, the ordinary courts, by arbitrarily applying substantive law, i.e. by failing to interpret the relevant provision of Article 51 of the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure in conjunction with other relevant provisions of the mentioned Law, notably Article 11(1) and (5) and Article 50 of that Law, concluded that only a court-appointed trustee was entitled to file an appeal against the ruling to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. In this connection, the Constitutional Court notes that the ordinary courts disregarded the relevant provisions of the Law on Bankruptcy Procedure by the mentioned interpretation and, thus, prevented the appellant from presenting evidence to prove that the requirements for initiating the bankruptcy procedure were not met, which rendered the rights of the appellant, as the debtor, ineffective and illusory. Thus, the ordinary courts prevented the appellant from having access to court as an element of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 3082/15 of 11 October 2017, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 78/17; bankruptcy procedure, a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH established

The Constitutional Court concludes that the appellant’s right to property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, and the right of access to a court, as an aspect of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention have been violated where the appellant is obliged to pay the full amount of costs of proceedings to the RS Attorney’s Office, which represented the Republika Srpska as the respondent party in the proceedings for compensation of non-pecuniary damages suffered by the appellant as a victim of war crime, where the costs are evaluated in the full amount on the basis of Attorney’s Tariff, as such a decision of the court places a disproportionate burden on the appellant in the circumstances of the particular case.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1101/17 of 22 March 2018, paragraph 53, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24/18; compensation for the costs of procedure, the case-law of the European Court in Cindrić v. Croatia judgment applied, a violation of Article II(3) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 6 of the European Convention and Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention established

The Constitutional Court concludes that there has been no violation of the right of access to court as a segment of the right to a fair trial under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention as the ordinary courts rejected the appellant’s claims, since the defendants (judges) had immunity against civil responsibility and as procedural and substantive law were not arbitrarily applied in the contested decisions because of the lack of the defendants capacity to be sued.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1516/17 of 10 April 2019, paragraph 32, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 36/19; immunity of the judges against civil responsibility, no violation of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 6 of the European Convention