According to the presented opinions, the procedure in which the appellant is obliged to pay the customs and other duties does not fall within the scope of the protection of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 382/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 6
The procedure of payment of duties arising from tax (public) law does not fall within the scope of rights guaranteed under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 529/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraph 6; obligation of payment of public revenues; appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH
The procedure relating to cashing in on the property of the debtor for the purpose of settling accounts of the creditors does not in any way concern the appellants’ “civil rights and obligations” as creditors since they tried to acquire the property through applying for the tender, which is not to be considered a “civil right or obligation” and therefore it does not fall within the scope of Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 914/04 of 12 April 2005, paragraph 12; bankruptcy proceedings
Deciding the issues of movement and stay of aliens falls exclusively within the competence of state authorities and it cannot be associated with the concept of “civil rights and obligations” as protected under Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 244/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 7
The decision of Municipal Council to allocate the construction land in accordance with the existing criteria to the appellant’s neighbor by direct settlement for the purpose of extending the courtyard, constitutes an act of land disposal since the appellant has been renting that land for more than ten years. Therefore, in the instant case there is no “determination of the appellant’s civil rights and obligations”. As to the procedure against the challenged judgment in which the appellant challenges the mentioned decision on allocation of land to the neighbor, the conclusion is made that he is not entitled to the protection within the meaning of the mentioned constitutional right. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1038/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraphs 6 and 7
According to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the right of an alien to settle in a certain country falls within the domain of public law of each country. If a certain country, even on temporary basis, has denied the right of stay in to an alien for the reasons stipulated by law, that is to be considered an act of the state which falls within the scope of its public legal domain and it does not enjoy the protection of Article 6 of the European Convention as “civil right or obligation”. Therefore, although such a decision may have certain effect on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations, the respective state shall not be required to ensure a public hearing in such case neither would it be required
to meet other requirements set out in Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1189/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 8
The procedure in which the appellant, as a state authority, was ordered to conduct a new vacancy announcement procedure after the previous procedure had been annulled because of being unlawfully conducted, is not a procedure in which some of the appellant’s civil rights and obligations were determined. Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not applicable in the instant case, and therefore the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1929/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 6
Civil rights and obligations are not to be determined in the procedure which concerns managing the main hearing. In the view of the aforesaid, the outcome of such a procedure is not decisive for determination of civil rights and obligations. Article 6(1) of the European Convention is not applicable to the case at hand and the appeal is rejected as inadmissible for it is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2160/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraphs 9 and 10
In his appeal, the appellant complains of the violation of Article 6 of the European Convention for he considers that the decision on annulment of appellant’s decision dealing with appointment of a candidate to the fireman’s position should have been taken in the course of administrative dispute and not in the course of civil proceedings. Given that Article 6 of the European Convention guarantees that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations [...] everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing [...] ”, and in this specific case the rights the appellant complains to have been violated do not fall within the scope of “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2104/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 17
The civil rights and obligations are not to be determined in the procedure of issuance of documents from the collection of land registry documents.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 299/07 of 3 April 2008, paragraph 6
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that in the procedure in which the ordinary courts were deciding the appellant’s motion for the annulment of the “validity clause”, the decision was not taken on the determination of the appellant’s rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention. Namely, in the proceedings at hand, the ordinary courts were merely resolving the procedural issues concerning the fulfillment of requirements for annulment of validity clause. Therefore, the outcome of that procedure cannot be decisive for determination of civil rights and obligations.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 459/08 of 12 June 2008, paragraph 8
The Constitutional Court concludes that in the proceedings at hand, which has the characteristics of dispute arising from the election process, the decision was not taken on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations but it is rather that the decision was taken on his political rights. Given that the guarantees from Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European Convention are not applicable to the proceedings in question, the Constitutional Court concludes that the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3593/08 of 18 December 2008, paragraph 10
The electoral disputes relating to the elected officials are outside of the civil and criminal scope of Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2418/06 of 18 December 2008; conflict of interest
The Constitutional Court holds that no applicant’s civil rights or obligations were decided upon in the relevant proceedings but on the legality of decision issued by the appellant (the Assembly of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina) within the scope of authorities stemming from its position of the legislative power holder. Therefore, the appellant’s allegations on the violation of the right to a fair trial must be rejected as ration materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3080/11 of 23 September 2011, paragraph 15
The present case concerns a procedure wherein the issue of a possible violation of the rules and regulations of the Agency was discussed ex officio, as possibly inflicted by the RTV FBiH during the show “60 minutes”. The Constitutional Court further observes that the Agency, in such a procedure, within the meaning of Article 46(3) of the Law on Communications, if it establishes the existence of a violation, shall have the authority to apply enforcement measures against the perpetrator proportional to the violations as prescribed by the mentioned legal provision. Further, the Constitutional Court observes that a first-instance act had been rendered in the respective procedure suspending that procedure, as it was established that the respective program of RTV FBiH did not violate the regulations of the Agency, as well as the second-instance act upholding that first- instance act, against which act the appellant filed a lawsuit with the Court of BiH, which was rejected by means of the challenged ruling of the Court of BiH with references to Article 25(3) of the Law on Administrative Disputes (which prescribes that the Court shall reject the action by decision if it concludes: that it is obvious that the final administrative act disputed by the action does not affect the right of the plaintiff or his/her personal interest based on law). Bearing in mind all the aforementioned, the Constitutional Court notes that the present procedure before the Agency, which was finalized by the act against which the appellant filed a lawsuit with the Court of BiH, did not involve the discussion on the appellant’s civil rights and obligations, rather it was disputed whether RTV FBiH, as the third person, violated in the mentioned show the rules and regulations of the Agency, and whether, accordingly, conditions exist to apply the measures against the mentioned person as referred to in Article 46(3) of the Law on Communications. The allegations made in the appeal support this wherein the appellant indicated that “the procedure was not conducted for the protection of the subjective rights of the appellant” and that “the essence of this procedure was for [the Agency] as a competent regulator to establish the violation of the Law on Communications and the Code on Broadcasting Radio Television Program and to sanction the TV broadcaster”. Therefore, given that there was no discussion in the respective procedure on the appellant’s rights and obligations, the appellant may not enjoy the protection of rights guaranteed under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention, including the right of access to court, which makes the appeal ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2649/14 of 15 February 2017, paragraph 17
In the circumstances of the present case, the disputed failure to submit the excerpts from the Central Voters Register for the purpose of carrying out the referendum does not fall under the civilian aspect.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3805/16 of 15 February 2017, paragraph 15
As to the allegations about the violation of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Constitutional Court indicates that the mentioned article in the relevant part reads that “Every” citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: … (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. Given that the appellant in the present case is a political party and not a citizen within the meaning of the mentioned provisions, the Constitutional Court deems that the guarantees referred to in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights may not be applied to the respective procedure. In that connection, the Constitutional Court points to the position of United Nations Human Rights Committee, according to which the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entrusted the Human Rights Committee with the competence to consider objections regarding alleged violations of the Covenant by a State Party to the Protocol (Articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol). That is explicitly limited to the right of individuals to lodge applications. Therefore, objections submitted on their behalf by nongovernmental organizations, associations, political parties or corporations are declared, as a rule, inadmissible, over the lack of the standing as a party (see, e.g., Persons with Disability in Italy v. Italy (Application no. 163/1984). Bearing in mind the aforementioned, these allegations of the appellant are also ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 7518/18 of 10 January 2019, paragraph 10
