Last updated: February 2024

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 2002

National Judge: Faris Vehabović (3 December 2012 - )

Judges’ CVs are available on the ECHR Internet site
Previous Judge: Ljiljana Mijović (2004-2011)
List of judges of the Court since 1959

The Court dealt with 328 applications concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2023, of which
326 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 2 judgments (concerning
2 applications), both of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on
Human Rights.

Applications Applications pending before the

processed 2021 2022 2023 court on 01/01/2024
in
Applications pending before a judicial 104
Applications 783 407 248 formation:
allocated to a Single Judge 69
judicial
formation Committee (3 Judges) 30
Communicated 59 27 18
to the Chamber (7 Judges) 5
Government
Applications 589 823 328 Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 0
decided:
- Declared 485 754 318
inadmissible or
struck out
(Single Judge) Bosnia and Herzegovina and ...
- Declared 44 54 8
inadmissible or The Registry
struck out The task of the Registry is to provide
(Committee)
- Declared 0 0 0
legal and administrative support to the
inadmissible or Court in the exercise of its judicial
struck out functions. It is composed of lawyers,
(Chamber) administrative and technical staff and
- Decided by 60 15 2 translators. There are currently
judgment
618 Registry staff members.
For information about the Court’s judicial formations
and procedure, see the ECHR internet site
Statistics on interim measures can be found here.
Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

crimes about the proceedings before that

Noteworthy cases, judgments court. They complained in particular that a
more stringent criminal law had been
delivered applied to them retroactively than that
which had been applicable at the time they
Grand Chamber committed the offences.
Violation of Article 7 (no punishment
Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and without law)
Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
27.06.2017 Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and
The case concerned a finding of defamation Herzegovina
in civil proceedings against four 22.12.2009
organisations following the publication of a The judgment found discriminatory the
letter they had written to the highest constitutional arrangements, put in place by
authorities of their district complaining the Dayton Peace Agreement, according to
about a person’s application for the post of which only people declaring affiliation with
director of Brčko District’s multi-ethnic Bosniacs, Croats or Serbs were eligible to
radio and television station. stand for election to the tripartite State
No violation of Article 10 (freedom of presidency and the second chamber of the
expression) State parliament.
Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of
Ališić and Others v. Bosnia and discrimination) taken together with Article 3
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)
and “The former Yugoslav Republic of Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to
Macedonia” the Convention (general prohibition of
16.07.2014 discrimination)
Concerned the applicants’ inability to
recover “old” foreign-currency savings –
deposited with two banks in what is now
Noteworthy cases, judgments
Bosnia and Herzegovina – following the and decisions delivered
dissolution of the former Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Chamber
The Court held:
With regard to Mr Šahdanović:
unanimously, that there had been a Cases dealing with the right to life
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Article 2)
(protection of property) and a violation of Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) by
15.02.2011
Serbia;
Disappearance during the war in Bosnia and
With regard to Ms Ališić and Mr Sadžak:
Herzegovina of a military commander
unanimously, that there had been a
leading one of the local forces at the time.
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and a
No violation of Article 2, 3 (prohibition of
violation of Article 13 by Slovenia;
inhuman or degrading treatment) or 5
With regard to the other respondent States:
(right to liberty and security)
by a majority, that there had been no
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 and no
violation of Article 13, and, Cases concerning the prohibition of
unanimously, that there had been no inhuman and/or degrading treatment
violation of Article 14 taken together with (Article 3)
Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Al Hanchi v. Bosnie-Herzegovina
Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and 15.11.2011
Herzegovina Complaint by a foreign mujahedin that, if
18.07.2013 he were deported to Tunisia, he would be
Complaints by two men convicted by the ill-treated.
Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of war No violation of Article 3

2
Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina introduced following a leading ECHR

15.02.2011 judgment 1 against Bosnia and Herzegovina
See cases dealing with Article 2 of November 2009 in which it was held that
the size of public debt could not justify
Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and statutory suspension of the enforcement of
Herzegovina an entire category of final judgments. The
27.05.2008 plan envisaged the enforcement of final
The applicants were convicted of war judgments ordering payment of war
crimes against Bosniac civilians (at the damages in cash within 13 years starting
time, Bosnian Muslim) during the 1992-95 from 2013. This enforcement time-frame
war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They was extended to 20 years in July 2013.
complained about being persecuted, Violation of Article 6
threatened and beaten by fellow prisoners Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
from the time of their arrival in Zenica (protection of property)
Prison until they were provided with
separate accommodation in the prison Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and
hospital unit. They further complained Herzegovina
about their detention conditions in the 10.11.2009
hospital unit. A leading judgment concerning the non-
Violation of Article 3 enforcement of domestic courts decisions
Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective ordering the payment of war damages.
remedy) Violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of
Protocol No 1 (protection of property)
Cases on Article 5 Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
(right to liberty and security) 31.10.2006
Applicant not allowed to withdraw her
Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
savings in foreign currency and a final
(no. 2)
judgment in her favour not enforced.
25.06.2019 Violation of Article 6
The case concerned a man who was held in Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
detention pending possible deportation for (protection of property)
extended periods while the authorities
sought a safe third country to remove him
to. This case concerned his detention from Inadmissible applications
July 2012. Smajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the
08.02.2018
applicant’s detention from August 2014 to
The case concerned Mr Smajić’s conviction
February 2016
for making a number of posts in 2010 on an
No violation of Article 5 § 1 over his
Internet forum describing military action
detention between July 2012 and
which could be undertaken against Serb
March 2013 and March 2014 to
villages in the Brčko District in the event of
August 2014
another war.
No violation of Article 5 § 4 (proceedings on
Application declared inadmissible as
lawfulness of detention)
complaints were manifestly ill-founded.
Simić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cases dealing with Article 6
08.12.2016
Right to a fair trial The case concerned Mr Simić’s removal
from office as a judge of the Constitutional
Đurić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Court. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1
20.01.2015 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom
The cases dealt with the ssettlement plan of expression), Mr Simić alleged in
introduced in October 2012 by Bosnia and particular that the proceedings to dismiss
Herzegovina for the enforcement of final him had been unfair and that he had been
domestic judgments awarding war
damages. The settlement plan was
1
Čolić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

-3-
Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

removed from office because of statements

he had made in public via the media
Cases dealing with property issues
criticising the Constitutional Court.
(Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
Application declared inadmissible.
Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and
Enforcement of domestic judicial decision Herzegovina
Šekerović and Pašalić v. Bosnia and 01.10.2019
Herzegovina The case concerned a church built by the
Serbian Orthodox Parish on the applicants’
08.03.2011
land after they had had to flee their
Pension rights of internally-displaced people
property during the 1992-95 war.
following their return from the Republika
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1
Srpska to the Federation of Bosnia and
Press release available in Bosnian
Herzegovina after the war.
Violation of Article 6 Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 27.05.2010
(protection of property) and violation of The applicant’s impossibility to regain
Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) possession of a flat – and be registered as
its owner – which he had bought and left in
Private and family life cases Sarajevo following the outbreak of the
(Article 8) 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1
Šobota-Gajic v. Bosnia and See also Mago and Others v. Bosnia and
Herzegovina Herzegovina, 03.05.2012
06.11.2007
Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Failure by the national authorities to take
all reasonable measures to facilitate 03.11.2009
applicant’s reunion with her son, despite A pilot judgment concerning “old”
domestic decisions in her favour foreign-currency savings in Bosnian-based
Violation of Article 8 banks.
Around 1,300 similar applications have
been declared inadmissible since the
Freedom of thought, conscious and delivery of this judgment.
religion Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1
(Article 9)
Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Inadmissible application
05.12.2017
Stojnić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2012 Mr Hamidović, a witness in a
criminal trial, was expelled from the 29.10.2015
courtroom, convicted of contempt of court The case concerned the attempt by a
and fined for refusing to remove his former officer of the armed forces of the
skullcap. former Socialist Federal Republic of
Violation of Article 9 Yugoslavia to have his pre-war flat in
Sarajevo restored to him.
The Court declared the application
Article 10 (freedom of expression) inadmissible as abusive within the meaning
Simić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina of Article 35 (admissibility criteria) of the
(no. 39764/20) Convention.
Committee judgment
17.05.2022 Cases concerning discrimination
The case concerned a joke that the (Articles 14 and 1 of Protocol No. 12)
applicant, a lawyer, told in court to
Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
illustrate his criticism of the proceedings in
(no. 43651/22)
which he was representing a client. As a
result, he was fined for contempt of court. 29.08.2023
Violation of Article 10 The case concerned the complaint by
Mr Kovačević that because of a combination

-4-
Press country profile – Bosnia and Herzegovina

of the territorial and ethnic requirements Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12

applicable to the House of Peoples of the (general prohibition of discrimination)
Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and
Zornić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Herzegovina, he had been unable to vote
for the candidates of his choice in the 15.07.2014
legislative and presidential elections which Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for election
had taken place in 2022. to the House of Peoples and the Presidency
Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of Bosnia and Herzegovina because she
(general prohibition of discrimination) refused to declare affiliation to any
See also press release in Bosnian. particular ethnic group but declared herself
as a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and,
Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance with the Constitution, only
29.10.2019 those who declared affiliation with the
The case concerned a legal void which so-called “constituent peoples” (namely,
made it impossible for the applicant, a local Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) were entitled
politician living in Mostar, to vote or stand to stand for election.
in elections. Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3
See also press release in Bosnian. of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) as
regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for
Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
election to the House of Peoples of Bosnia
09.06.2016 and Herzegovina
The case concerned the complaint by a Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12
politician residing in the Republika Srpska (general prohibition of discrimination) as
(one of the two constituent entities of regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for
Bosnia and Herzegovina), who declares election both to the House of Peoples as
himself as Bosniac, of the fact that it was well as to the Presidency of Bosnia and
legally impossible for him to stand for Herzegovina
election to the Presidency of the country.

ECHR Press Unit Contact:

+33 (0)3 90 21 42 08

-5-