The essence of the right acquired by the first appellant does not constitute an economic value within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, but only a possibility for designating an employee whose social status will be resolved by the owner’s subsequent allocation of the apartment.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. U 69/03 of 19 April 2004, paragraph 18

When the appellant invokes an alleged violation of the Constitution of the Republika Srpska without referring to any of the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which he deems to have been violated, the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible for being ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. U 73/03 of 23 April 2004, paragraph 8;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1264/06 of 11 March 2008, paragraph 17;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2001/06 of 14 July 2008, paragraph 14

Given the fact that the first instance judgment granted the appellant’s claim and that the challenged second instance judgment dismissed the defendant’s complaint against the first instance judgment as ill-founded and the first instance judgment was upheld, it is evident that the appellant’s reply to the complaint of the defendant was not necessary in regards to the protection and exercise of his rights in the instant dispute. Accordingly, his claim relating to the compensation for expenses incurred by drafting a reply to the complaint is not guaranteed under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 6(1) of the European Convention and Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. U 76/03 of 28 April 2004, paragraph 9

The text of Article 6 of the European Convention and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights provides for, inter alia, the right of access to a court, but it does not provide for a possibility to lodge a complaint with a higher court after the decision on the relevant legal matter has been taken by an independent and impartial tribunal. Accordingly, Article 13 of the European Convention does not oblige a state to ensure a possibility of lodging a complaint with a higher court in order to establish whether there was a violation of the rights under the European Convention (see former European Commission for Human Rights, Decision on Admissibility No. 10153/82 of 13 October 1986, Decisions and Reports 49, 67). In such cases Article 13 of the European Convention does not provide for additional protection other than the one provided for by Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 547/03 of 26 August 2004

The appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution since the subject of appeal is related to the right to acquire an apartment and not to the interference with an already acquired right.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 803/04 of 23 March 2005, paragraph 6

The Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention in the proceedings where the appellant, a public office holder, complains about the decision of the Council on Termination of Term of Office. It follows that the appellant’s allegations are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 121/04 of 22 April 2005

A dispute between the public authority and employees, whose work positions include participation in the exercise of powers relating to public law, does not require application of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 422/04 of 18 May 2005, paragraph 12;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 354/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 423/04 of 15 June 2005, paragraph 9; decision of HJPC on rejecting the re-election of judge, decision of HJPC on termination of term of office

As to the instant case, the appellant had expectations that he would become the owner of the property through inheritance. Therefore, it follows that the appeal referring to the Ruling of the Inheritance Court in regards to a violation of the right to the property under Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 1113/04 of 13 September 2005, paragraph 14, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2250/05 of 9 November 2006, paragraph 8;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2259/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 13; future property

An appeal shall be deemed to be ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution if the appellant complains about the violation of right to a home and the fact is that she has never lived in the apartment.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 690/04 of 13 October 2005, paragraph 8

There is no interference with the appellant’s right to respect for home since the appellant complains of being unable to exercise his right to alternative accommodation after being evicted from the apartment in which he lived in as temporary user. Given the circumstances of this case, Article 8 of the European Convention is not applicable since the provision of this Article generally protects the right to respect for home which the appellant does not have in the instant case within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 899/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 29, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06

Given the fact that the appellant’s request for alternative accommodation was rejected for the reason that the request has failed to meet the requirements stipulated under the relevant law, the appellant could not have had “legitimate” expectations that he would exercise the desired right because it was established that the requirements stipulated by the relevant law on alternative accommodation were not met. Therefore, in the instant case no violation of the right to property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention could have occurred and therefore the appellant’s allegations concerning this part of the appeal are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on the Merits No. AP 899/05 of 14 March 2006, paragraph 30, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 17/06

When the appellant did not move into the apartment allocated to him based on the ruling of the apartment’s owner and the apartment was subsequently allocated to some other person, the subject of dispute before ordinary courts was not the appellant’s property since the appellant was not the occupancy right holder over the apartment in question. Therefore, in the instant case, Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention cannot be applied.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1035/05 of 12 April 2006, paragraph 8

The subject of dispute before ordinary courts is the annulment of the defendant’s decision on adoption of final candidate list for allocation of apartments. The apartment which might be allocated to the appellant for his use does not constitute the appellant’s property. Such an apartment may eventually constitute a prospective property since the appellant may acquire the right to be allocated the apartment by application of the relevant defendant’s Rule Book. However, the right to acquire an apartment upon the allocation of the holder of disposal right is not protected by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Convention because the mentioned provision provides no protection for the “future” property and therefore this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1419/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 16

The issuance of work permit to an alien is not only in direct connection with the right of an alien to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina but the said issue is to be resolved within an administrative procedure to be conducted based on the relevant public authority’s margin of appreciation and in accordance with the special Law on Employment of Aliens. In view of the aforesaid, the allegations of the appeal about violation of the right to a fair trial are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1427/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraphs 9 and 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1428/05 of 12 September 2006, paragraph 9

As to the instant case, a conclusion is not to be drawn that there is interference with the appellant’s home because he has never set up a home but just submitted a request for issuance of ruling that would grant him a right to construct an additional floor on the facility which represents a collective housing unit. The constructed floor might eventually become his home, that is his property, and therefore his allegations about the violation of the right to property and right to home are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2129/05 of 20 September 2006, paragraph 11

The appellant’s allegations about the violation of his right to property due to the Court’s refusal to award him the appeal fee, which he has never paid, are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2178/05 of 20 October 2006, paragraph 11

By the challenged judgments the appellant’s request for repossession of the apartment was not granted for the reason that the she has never moved into the disputed apartment and she has never concluded the contract on use of the apartment. Accordingly, the subject of the administrative proceedings and administrative dispute is not the appellant’s property because the appellant was not the occupancy right holder over the disputed apartment and the above referenced apartment cannot be considered her “property” within the meaning of Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention and thus it cannot enjoy the protection provided for by the mentioned provisions.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1785/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 10

The appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of BiH in relation to the allegations about the violation of Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 8 of the European Convention because the appellant has never moved into the disputed apartment and this fact was indisputably established by the administrative bodies and ordinary courts. Therefore, it is obvious that Article 8 of the European Convention cannot be applied to this case since the appellant has never lived in the disputed apartment and the apartment has never been her “home” within the meaning of Article II(3)(f) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 8 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1785/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 9;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1825/05 of 21 December 2006, paragraph 11

The appellant referred to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina but failed to refer to the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and European Convention for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that he deems to have been violated by the challenged decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally compulsory agreement and has no constitutional law status in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It follows that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the provisions of the Constitution of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina he referred to, are not applicable to the instant case. Therefore, the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1931/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 6

The provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Convention are applicable only to the proceedings where the subject of dispute is property and not the proceedings where an appellant attempts to ensure that he has the right to acquire the property. In the case at hand, the subject of dispute before ordinary court is the compensation for non-pecunitary damages, which means the “future” property. Accordingly, Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not to be applied in the instant case nor Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention. Therefore, a conclusion follows that this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 969/05 of 16 January 2007, paragraph 16

In the case at hand, the subject of dispute before ordinary courts is the amount of money awarded to the appellant for the costs of representation which is less than expected by the appellant. In connection with this, the Constitutional Court points out that Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention only protects the existing possessions and not the right to acquire the possessions (see European Court of Human Rights, Marckx, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A-31). The Constitutional Court recalls a position of the European Commission for Human Rights according to which a request relating to the tariff for public notary service may be considered “property” only if such a conclusion is reached in the instant case based on the services that were indeed provided and based on the existing tariff regulations (see European Commission for Human Rights, X vs. the Federal Republic of Germany, 1979). In the instant case the appellant failed to prove in the court proceedings that her claim is based on the valid Attorney’s Fees. Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that neither Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina nor Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention are to be applied to the instant case. Therefore, it follows that that this part of the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 926/06 of 9 May 2007, paragraph 18

The proceedings in which the appellant appears as plaintiff seeking protection from alleged slander, which implies that the claim was not directed against the appellant with regards to his manner of expression, does not concern the appellant’s right to freedom of expression and therefore the appellant’s allegations in relation to violation of Article II(3)(h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 10 of the European Convention must be dismissed as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 90/06 of 6 July 2007, paragraph 18, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 77/07

The Constitutional Court considers that the appellant’s belief that she would be successful in her claim for the repossession of nationalized property, regardless of the fact that the decision on nationalization of the disputed land has never been annulled as an individual act by the decision of the competent body, does not constitute a “legitimate expectation “within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention since the “legitimate expectation” must be more specific than a mere hope for the restitution and must be based on the legal provisions or on certain legal act. Therefore, the Constitutional Court accordingly concludes that the applicant has not shown that she had a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and she therefore cannot argue that she had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention (op.cit, decision Gratzinger, paragraph 74), for which reason the appellant’s allegations about the violation of the right to property do not fall within the scope of the mentioned provision, but they are rather ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2361/06 of 10 January 2008, paragraph 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2655/06 of 11 March 2008, paragraph 10

The Constitutional Court concludes that pursuant to the provisions of valid laws the prison sentences exceeding three years cannot be the subject of the proceedings in which the sentence would be removed (Article 125(7) of the FBiH Criminal Code). Therefore, the appellant’s allegations that his right to a fair trial was violated during the proceedings at hand must be rejected as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accordingly, given that this case does not concern the determination of civil rights and obligations or grounds for any criminal charge, it follows that the appellant’s allegations about 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 regards to the procedure of deleting the prison sentence from the criminal record are ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, as to the appellant’s allegations that ordinary courts violated his right to freedom of movement and residence while conducting the procedure of deleting the prison sentence from the criminal record, it follows that no decision was to be taken on the appellant’s right to freedom of movement and residence and therefore, even when it comes to the alleged violation of rights under Article II(3)(m) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention, the appeal is to be deemed as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 2258/06 of 3 April 2008, paragraphs 10 and 11

As to the challenged rulings of the Supreme Court whereby the appellant’s motion for hearing the protected witness was rejected as inadmissible and untimely, it is concluded no deliberation was conducted on the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty, i.e. on the grounds for the appellant’s detention, but on the procedural admissibility of the appellant’s motion. The accessory proceedings within the criminal proceedings is not related to the rights guaranteed under Article II(3)(d) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 5 of the European Convention. Therefore, the appellant’s allegations must be rejected as ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 615/08 of 3 April 2008, paragraph 9

The appellant, i.e. the Chamber of Commerce of the Republika Srpska, as an organization established ex lege, is not entitled to protection under Article 11 of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1435/06 of 12 June 2008, paragraph 8

Given the fact that the appellant did not refer to the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy and that he failed to submit evidence or point to the facts based on which a conclusion could be made that the case falls within the scope of the provisions of the European Convention, the Constitutional Court concludes that the appeal is ratione materiae incompatible with the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (see, the Constitutional Court, for example AP 1047/07 of 26 June 2007, paragraph 26).
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1652/08 of 4 September 2008, paragraph 9

Article 179(3) of the Law on the Service in the Armed Force of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides that administrative dispute [...] shall not be conducted against the act relating to [...] termination of service of professional military person. Thus, taking into account that in the instant case the military persons are explicitly excluded from having access to court and that the state, by regulating this issue, has used its “discretionary right” in the course of defense reform, both requirements for the exclusion of appellants, as civil servants, from the protection provided for under Article 6(1) of the European Convention have been met in the instant case.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1765/08 of 17 September 2008, paragraph 10;
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1986/10 of 29 June 2010, paragraph 10

The Constitutional Court notes that the challenged judgements issued by the ordinary court on the basis of Article 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code of FBiH and the Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the mutual enforcement of foreign judicial decisions in criminal procedures, in the present case do not fall under the scope of Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
•    Decision on Admissibility No. AP 56/09 of 25 October 2011, paragraph 20