The appellant presented sufficient evidence to the Constitutional Court as to the alleged violations of her rights that could be taken as basis for issuance of interim measure. She also offered a sufficient number of facts to the Constitutional Court justifying her fear that irreparable consequences might occur by the enforcement of the mentioned judgments given the fast privatization process in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 214/03 of 19 April 2004, paragraph 13; transfer of disposal right over the real properties – Privredna Bank in Brčko
The Constitutional Court finds it evident that the circumstances of these two cases raise an issue under Article 7 paragraph 1 of the European Convention in conjunction with Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention. This conclusion concerns the complaints of the appellants that by misapplication of criminal legislation they were deprived of the right to immunity from criminal prosecution in criminal cases conducted before the Cantonal Court and this right is guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 72/04 of 19 April 2004, paragraph 6
Making it possible for the temporary user to purchase the apartment in question, in which case a final decision on the merits of the case about to the right of the appellant to repossession of the apartment was not adopted, attaches both legal and factual consequences to the appellant and leads to irreparable damage. On one hand, both enjoyment of rights and revocation of rights in the course of administrative proceedings must not be to the detriment of other persons for it would cause legal anarchy. For the mentioned reasons and due to failure to adopt decision on repossession of the apartment, the appellant could suffer irreparable consequences. On the other hand, there is no lenient measure which would help reach the same goal. Those were the sufficient reasons for the Constitutional Court to conclude, pending the adoption of the decision on the merits, that the requirements have been met for adoption of an interim measure whereby the temporary user would be temporarily banned from purchasing the apartment in dispute.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 1404/05 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 14
Both the exercise and revocation of rights in the course of judicial proceedings must be in accordance with law and not to the detriment of someone else’s rights, otherwise it would lead to legal anarchy. For the said reasons, due to the lack of access to court and untimely adoption of the decision on the appellant’s claim for annulment of the disputed sales contract and given the fact that the disposal of the disputed apartment by the defendant was made possible, the irreparable consequences might occur to the detriment of the appellant. The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that there is no lenient measure, whereby the same goal would be achieved when it comes to preventing or limiting the prospective damage.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 1925/05 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 14
It is necessary to adopt an interim measure under the circumstances where the facts prima facie indicate that there are failures in the proceedings that could have decisive effect on the outcome of the proceedings.
• Decision on Interim Measure No. AP 1926/05 of 23 March 2006, paragraph 11
The Constitutional Court deems that the respective appeal raised serious issuesconcerning, first and foremost, the interference with the appellant’s constitutional right to peaceful enjoyment of possession, safeguarded under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention. Namely, the Constitutional Court, considering all the facts of the present case, particularly bearing in mind that it concerns obvious disproportion between the appellant’s debt and real properties on sale, which finally resulted in the adoption of a conclusion on 11 April 2019, which determined the first hearing for the sale of seven appellant’s real properties of the total value of BAM 44,249.50 for the payment of the debt of BAM 64.90. Therefore, the Constitutional Court deems the presented reasons sufficient to estimate that conditions were met to temporarily suspend, pending the adoption of a final decision, the execution of enforcement actions in the case of the Municipal Court no. 41 0 I 035764 17 Kom 3, deeming it apparent that the stay of enforcement is neither contrary to the public interest, nor would such stay inflict a greater damage to the persons who have the legal interest in the execution of the enforcement in the present case, as well as that the execution of enforcement actions in the respective procedure has the potential to cause damage to the appellant that would be hard to remedy, while, on the other hand, it is in the interest of correct conduct of the proceeding before the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on interim measure No. AP 1926/05 of 22 May 2019, paragraph 15
