The appeal shall be deemed to be filed by an unauthorized person if filed by persons who did not take part in the proceedings which was concluded by the judgment challenged before the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 624/04 of 28 June 2005, paragraph 10; an administrative dispute which was related to the change of of purpose of agricultural land; the appeal is not admissible due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court to take a decision, expiry of time-limit, non-exhaustion of legal remedies, ratione materiae incompatibility with the Constitution
In the case at hand, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Basic Court which was adopted in the criminal case against defendant T.B. due to criminal offence of money laundering under Article 280(3) and criminal offence of falsification of documents under Article 377(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska. So, by the challenged decisions the relevant proceeding has not been completed in regards to determination of criminal charge against the appellant but against other person, and therefore the appeal is rejected as inadmissible for the reason that it was filed by an unauthorized person.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1215/05 of 9 February 2006, paragraph 10
Based on the documents submitted with the appeal, it follows that the enforcement proceedings was conducted upon the motion of L.B., E.K., and E.M. in their capacity as enforcement creditor and that the appellant had no capacity as a party to the proceedings, neither did she take part in the enforcement proceedings which was concluded by issuance of the ruling of the Municipal Court which was subsequently challenged by this appeal. Bearing in mind the above mentioned facts, it is undisputable that the appellant is not a person authorized to challenge the mentioned decision since this decision did not deal with her rights or obligations.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1191/05 of 27 June 2006, paragraph 5
Article 21(2)(f) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court prescribes that an appeal lodged with the Constitutional Court ought to contain a special power of attorney for the representation before the Constitutional Court if the appellant has a representative. Therefore, this provision explicitly prescribes an obligation of submitting along with an appeal a special power of attorney for the representation before the Constitutional Court if the appellant has a representative. It follows from the aforementioned that it is not acceptable to refer to the provisions of Article 305 of the Law on Civil Procedure, which regulates the power of an attorney if a party issued the power of attorney to an attorney to be in charge in the litigation and failed to fully specify authorizations in the power of attorney. The Constitutional Court recalls Article 1 of the Law on Civil Procedure –Basic Principles, which prescribes that: This Law shall define rules of procedure based on which the Municipal Courts, Cantonal Courts and the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as: the Federation Supreme Court) shall deliberate and decide on civil disputes unless otherwise stipulated by a separate law. The Constitutional Court again emphasizes that the Constitutional Court is not an ordinary judicial authority so that it would be possible to apply the provisions of the Law on Civil Procedure concerning the attorney and the power of attorney. Therefore, if the appeal does not contain everything that has been prescribed under Article 21(2) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, including, among other things, a special power of attorney for the representation before the Constitutional Court if the appellant has a representative, the Constitutional Court will, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, request within a given time limit, within 15 days at the longest from the day of receiving the invitation for supplement, for shortcomings to be removed, and if such shortcomings are not removed the appeal shall be rejected within the meaning of Article 22(2) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court. In the present case, bearing in mind that at the time of lodging the appeal by the representative for the appellants, there was no clear position related to the application of the provision of Article 21(2)(f) of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court will make an exception and accept the power of attorney issued by the appellants to Mirsad Sipović, a lawyer practicing in Sarajevo, as if it were “a special power of attorney for the representation before the Constitutional Court”.
• Decision on Admissibility and Merits No. AP 1102/16 of 6 June 2018, paragraphs 35 to 37, published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 45/18; a special power of attorney for the representation before the Constitutional Court