DOCSLIB.ORG

Sarajevo, 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Sarajevo, 2015. Korice_nove 23. decembar 2015 12:08:43 USTAVNI SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE УСТАВНИ СУД БОСНЕ И ХЕРЦЕГОВИНЕ CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Izdavač/Publisher: USTAVNI SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo, Reisa Džemaludina Čauševića 6/III Za idavača/For publisher: MIRSAD ĆEMAN Urednik/Editor: MATO TADIĆ Uređivački odbor/Editorial Board: MATO TADIĆ MIODRAG SIMOVIĆ ARIJANA DŽANOVIĆ ERMINA DUMANJIĆ AMELA HARBA-BAŠOVIĆ AZEM KRAJINIĆ Prijevod, lektura i korektura/ Translation, Editing and Proofreading: JEZIČKI ODJEL USTAVNOG SUDA BiH LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BiH Prijelom i dizajn/Layout and Design: AMELA HARBA-BAŠOVIĆ Štampa/Printed by: ŠTAMPARIJA FOJNICA d.d., Fojnica Tiraž/Print run: 200 Ustavni sud će podržavati ovaj Ustav. Odluke Ustavnog suda su konačne i obavezujuće. (Član VI/3. i 4. Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine) Уставни суд ће штитити овај Устав. Одлуке Уставног суда су коначне и обавезујуће. (Члан VI/3 i 4 Устава Босне и Херцеговине) The Constitutional Court shall uphold this Constitution. Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding. (Article VI(3) and (4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina) 3 Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine smješten je u zgradi Predsjedništva BiH u Ulici reisa Džemaludina Čauševića 6/III, Sarajevo Уставни суд Босне и Херцеговине смјештен је у згради Предсједништва БиХ, у Улици реиса Џемалудина Чаушевића 6/III, Сарајево The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is seated in the building of the Presidency of BiH, Reisa Džemaludina Čauševića No. 6/III, Sarajevo Tel: +387 33 251 226 Fax: +387 33 561 134 e-mail: [email protected] www.ustavnisud.ba www.ccbh.ba 4 UVOD INTRODUCTION Mirsad Ćeman Mirsad Ćeman Predsjednik President Ustavnog suda Constitutional Court of Bosne i Hercegovine Bosnia and Herzegovina Godine 2014. navršilo se pola stoljeća ustavnog sudovanja In 2014, the constitutional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina u Bosni i Hercegovini. Prigodnom manifestacijom Ustavni sud reached the half-century of its existence. The Constitutional Bosne i Hercegovine obilježio je ovaj značajan jubilej. Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held an appropriate ceremony Uspostavljen na temelju i u okvirima Ustava BiH iz 1963. go- to mark the important jubilee. dine (BiH je tada bila jedna od šest republika SFR Jugoslavije), Being established on the basis and within the framework Ustavni sud BiH je faktički počeo da radi 15. februara 1964. of the 1963 BiH Constitution (at the time, BiH was one of godine a prvi izbor sudija izvršen je 26. juna 1963. godine. U the six republics of the former Socialist Federal Republic of historijskom kontekstu to je jedan od rijetkih primjera u drža- Yugoslavia), the Constitutional Court of BiH actually started to vama socijalističke orijentacije, budući da je bivša Jugoslavija work on 15 February 1964 and first judges were appointed on (na saveznom i republičkom nivou) imala uređen i funkcionalan 26 June 1963. In the historical context, this is a rare example sistem ustavnih sudova. in the socialist countries, as the former Yugoslavia had an Današnji Ustavni sud BiH utemeljen je Ustavom Bosne organized and functional system of constitutional courts (at the i Hercegovine iz 1995. godine, tzv. Dejtonskim ustavom, koji Federal and republic level). predstavlja Aneks IV Općeg okvirnog sporazuma za mir u The current Constitutional Court of BiH is established by Bosni i Hercegovini, parafiranog 21. novembra 1995. godine u the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1995, the Dejtonu, država Ohajo, SAD, a potpisanog u Parizu, Francuska, so-called ‘Dayton Constitution’, which represents Annex IV to 14. decembra 1995. godine, te je jedna od pet državnih the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and institucija predviđenih ovim ustavom. Konstituiran je i počeo je Herzegovina, which was initialed in Dayton, Ohio USA on 21 da radi 22. maja 1997. godine. Nadležnosti su mu definirane November 1995 and officially signed in Paris on 14 December članovima VI/3. i IV/3.f) Ustava, te Amandmanom I na Ustav 1995, and it is one of the five state-level institutions foreseen BiH iz 2009. godine. U odnosu na raniji „preddejtonski“ period, by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court was constituted to su potpuno nove okolnosti, bitno drukčiji normativno-pravni and started work on 22 May 1997. It derives its powers from okvir i društveno-politički ambijent i odnosi. Article VI(3) and Article IV(3)(f) of the Constitution of BiH and Nakon prvog petogodišnjeg mandata domaćih i međunarod- Amendment No. 1 to the Constitution of BiH from 2009. When nih sudija koji je završen 2002. godine, sudijski sastav (mandat compared to the ‘pre-Dayton’ period, these are completely do sedamdesete godine života) povremeno se mijenjao zbog new circumstances, essentially different normative and legal različitih razloga predviđenih Ustavom. framework and social and political ambience and relations. 5 U formalno i faktički veoma složenoj ustavnopravnoj strukturi After the initial five-year appointment of national and i društvenim odnosima općenito u Bosni i Hercegovini Ustavni international judges, which ended in May 2002, the composition sud BiH ima jedan od najtežih zadataka javne vlasti - tumačenje, of the Constitutional Court of BiH (a retirement age of 70 for zaštitu i promoviranje specifičnog ustavnopravnog poretka koji judges) has changed from time to time for the reasons referred proizlazi iz „Dejtonskog ustava“ BiH. Podržavajući Ustav (čiji to in the Constitution. je sastavni dio i Evropska konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava In the formally and factually complex constitutional and legal i temeljnih sloboda, te 15 dodatnih sporazuma o ljudskim structure and social relationships in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pravima), Ustavni sud, donoseći ponekada veoma teške i the Constitutional Court of BiH has one of the most difficult dalekosežne odluke, zapravo razrješava i složene odnose tasks that public authorities have – it has the responsibility of između drugih institucija vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini. Kao interpreting, protecting and promoting the specific constitutional najviši institucionalni garant ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda and legal system established by the ‘Dayton Constitution’. u državi, Ustavni sud je istovremeno, putem svoje apelacijske Upholding the Constitution (and the European Convention for nadležnosti, izuzetno značajan oslonac građanima pojedinačno the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms u zaštiti i ostvarivanju njihovih prava i interesa. and 15 additional human rights agreements, which constitute Iako su relevantne informacije o Ustavnom sudu svim an integral part of the Constitution), the Constitutional Court, zainteresiranim dostupne na internetskoj stranici i putem drugih rendering sometimes very difficult and far-reaching decisions, publikacija Ustavnog suda, namjena ove publikacije je da sažeto actually resolves very complex relationships between upozna najširu domaću i stranu opću, kao i stručnu javnost other institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a principal sa osnovnim podacima, te nadležnostima i funkcioniranjem institutional guarantor of human rights and fundamental Ustavnog suda Bosne i Hercegovine. freedoms in the country, the Constitutional Court, at the same time, protects the individual rights and interests of citizens, through its appellate jurisdiction. Although the relevant information about the Constitutional Court is available on our website or can be found in a number of our publications, this publication is intended for the broadest professional and general, domestic and international public with the purpose of their better understanding of the jurisdiction and functioning of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kabinet predsjednika Ustavnog suda Office of the President of the Constitutional Court 6 SASTAV Usta vni sud Bo sne i He rce go vi ne sasto ji The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and se od de vet čla no va. Herzegovina shall have nine members. a) Če ti ri čla na bi ra Pre dsta vni čki dom a) Four members shall be selected Fe de ra ci je, a dva čla na Skupština Repu- by the House of Representatives of blike Srpske. Pre osta la tri člana bira pred- the Federation, and two members by sje dnik Evro pskog su da za lju dska pra va the Assembly of the Republika Srpska. na kon ko nsu lta ci ja sa Predsjedništvom. The remaining three members shall be selected by the President of the European b) Su di je će bi ti ista knu ti pra vni ci vi sokog Court of Human Rights after consultation mo ra lnog ugle da. Sva ko ko udo vo lja va with the Presidency. COMPOSITION ta kvoj kvali fi ka ci ji i ima pra vo gla sa mo že bi ti ime no van za su di ju Ustavnog su da. b) Judges shall be distinguished jurists Su di je ko je bi ra pre dsje dnik Evro pskog of a high moral standing. Any eligible voter su da za lju dska pra va ne mo gu bi ti so qualified may serve as a judge of the drža vlja ni Bo sne i He rce go vi ne ili bi lo Constitutional Court. The judges selected ko je su sje dne drža ve. by the President of the European Court of Human Rights shall not be citizens c) Ma ndat su di ja ime no va nih u prvome of Bosnia and Herzegovina or of any sa zi vu bi će pet go di na, izu zev ako neighboring state. podnesu osta vku ili bu du s ra zlo gom MIRSAD ĆEMAN, razri je še ni na osno vu ko nse nzu sa osta lih c) The term of judges initially appointed Predsjednik/President su di ja. Su di je ko ji su ime no va ni u prvo- shall be five years, unless they resign or me sa zi vu ne mo gu bi ti re ime no va ni. Su- are removed for cause by consensus of MATO TADIĆ, di je koji će biti ime no va ni na kon prvog the other judges.
Recommended publications
  • Europäischer Verfassungsgerichte Und Des Europäischen Gerichtshofes Für Menschenrechte

    Europäischer Verfassungsgerichte Und Des Europäischen Gerichtshofes Für Menschenrechte

    Vergleich zwischen den Interpretationsmethoden europäischer Verfassungsgerichte und des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte Constance Grewe* Einleitung Im Bereich der Grund- und Menschenrechte konkurrieren - in jedem Sinne des Wortes - die -Interpretationen der nationalen Verfassungsgerichte mit derjenigen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte. Daher drängt sich die Frage der Vergleichbarkeit, der eventuellen Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede und deren Gründe geradezu auf. Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wäre es zwar reizvoll, die Rechtsprechung aller europäischen Verfassungsgerichte ins Auge zu fassen. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags kann jedoch nur ein kleiner Kreis möglichst repräsentativer Gerichte näher betrachtet werden. Dabei handelt es sich um Gerichte westeuropäischer Länder, in denen die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit verankert ist, auch wenn sie nicht immer so hochentwickelt ist wie in Deutschland. Konkret bedeutet dies, dass Frankreich, Deutschland, Österreich, die Schweiz, Italien, Spanien, Portugal und Belgien im Vordergrund des Interesses stehen werden, was nicht ausschliesst, je nach Sach- zusammenhang auch noch einige andere Länder einzubeziehen. Zur Fragestellung der Interpretationsmethoden ist zunächst zu bemerken, dass im allgemeinen weder die Verfassungen1 noch die meisten völkerrechtlichen Ver- träge2 etwas über ihre Interpretation oder die Grundsätze, nach denen sie aus- gelegt werden sollen, aussagen. Die betreffenden Gerichte verfügen infolgedessen über relativ grosse Freiheiten. Inwiefern ähneln sich oder unterscheiden sich diese Methoden? Und falls sie sich ähneln, heisst das nicht, dass diese beiden Arten von Gerichtsbarkeiten zwangsläufig spezifische und gemeinsame Methoden ent- wickeln? "-, Die hier angesprochenen Gerichtsbarkeiten verbinden tatsächlich mehrere ' gemeinsame Merkmale. Dies gilt für die Materie, d. h. die Menschenrechte ebenso wie für den Bezugstext, in einem Fall die Verfassung, im anderen die Europäische der der Gerichtshof für Menschen- 11.

  • Academy of European Law Twenty-Seventh Session

    Academy of European Law Twenty-seventh Session Human Rights Law 20 June – 1 July 2016 Reading Materials The European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law Ineta Ziemele Professor, Riga Graduate School of Law; Judge of the Constitutional Court of Latvia; former judge and Section President at the European Court of Human Rights TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Course Outline 1 2 Reading List 3 3 Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on 5 Human Rights, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2014 4 Luzius Wildhaber, Arnaldur Hjartarson, Stephen Donnelly, “No 24 Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights”, Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 7-12 (2013). 5 Steven Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights. 40 Achievements, Problems and Prospects, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 316 – 321. 6 Ineta Ziemele, “International Courts and Ultra Vires Acts”, in 46 Caflisch et al (eds.), Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Human Rights – Strasbourg Views.Droits de l’Homme – Regards de Strasbourg. N.P.Engel, Publisher, 2007, pp. 537 – 556 7 James Crawford, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of 66 International Law, Hague Academy of International Law, 2016, Chapter IX. The European Court of Human Rights as a Source of Human Rights Law Professor Ineta Ziemele Ph.D. (Cantab.) Judge of the Constitutional Court of Latvia, former judge and Section President at the European Court of Human Rights Outline of the lectures: 1. Introduction – setting the stage - Article 38. 1 (d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “judicial decisions as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law” - Article 32 of the ECHR: “1.
  • Max Planck Institute Luxembourg Activity Report 2016-2018

    Max Planck Institute Luxembourg Activity Report 2016-2018

    ACTIVITY REPORT 2016-18 MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE LUXEMBOURG There is an old saying that being right and being proven to be 20 right at court are two 12 20 different things 15 16-18 There is an old saying that being right and being proven to be right at court are different things 16-18 02/03 ACTIVITY REPORT 2016-18 MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE LUXEMBOURG 05 I. FOREWORD 07 II. HIGHLIGHTS 21 IV. STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION 07 1. A Max Planck Institute Outside of Germany 21 1. Organisational Chart 08 2. A Multicultural and Multidisciplinary Team 22 2. Directors of Young Researchers 25 3. Scientific Advisory Board Members 08 3. An International Research Institution Anchored 29 4. Senior Research Fellows in the Luxembourg Landscape 35 5. Research Fellows 09 4. A Hub for Researchers Interested in 46 6. External Scientific Members Procedural Issues 47 7. External Scientific Fellows 10 5. A Springboard for Talented Young Researchers 67 8. Former Research Fellows 11 6. A Recent Example of a Successful Collaboration between the Departments 12 7. Combining Research and Expertise with an Influence on Law and Policy-Making 79 V. RESEARCH FOCUS 79 1. Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law 79 1.1. General Research Agenda 13 III. SCIENTIFIC STRATEGY 80 1.1.1. European Procedural Law 13 1. Shaping an Underexplored Field of Research 81 1.1.2. Comparative Procedural Law 81 1.1.3. Dispute Resolution at the Cross-Roads 14 2. Exploring Each and Every Form of of Private and Public International Law Dispute Resolution 82 1.1.4 Interchanges with Legal Practice 15 3.
  • Constitutional Review in Consociations

    Constitutional Review in Consociations

    Rectifying and Reinforcing: Constitutional Review in Consociations by András Gál Submitted to The Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy, and International Relations Central European University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor: Professor Matthijs Bogaards February 12, 2021 Word Count: 64,816 i Declaration I, the undersigned András Gál, candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Central European University Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations, declare herewith that the present thesis is exclusively my own work, based on my research and only such external information as properly credited in notes and bibliography. I declare that no unidentified and illegitimate use was made of work of others, and no part the thesis infringes on any person’s or institution’s copyright. I also declare that no part the thesis has been submitted in this form to any other institution of higher education for an academic degree. February 12, 2021 Signature ii Abstract The role of constitutional review in consociations – a specific form of power-sharing built on elite cooperation – is a controversial phenomenon both for the conceptual difficulties surrounding it and its mixed empirical record. While authors in the relevant literature agree that constitutional courts may contribute to the protection of human rights in such regimes, they also warn of their undermining potential. The latter stems from an inherent tension between the individualistic, universal values promoted by constitutionalism and the group-specific provisions essential in consociations. The empirical record of constitutional review in consociations covers a variety of cases, ranging from judicial deference to cases of confrontational behavior undermining power- sharing settlements.
  • The Concept of Democracy As Developed by Constitutional Justice

    The Concept of Democracy As Developed by Constitutional Justice

    EDITORS: RAINER ARNOLD INGRIDA DANĖLIENĖ THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY AS DEVELOPED BY CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE XXII International Congress on European and Comparative Constitutional Law Vilnius, 4–5 October 2019 THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY AS DEVELOPED BY CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE XXII International Congress on European and Comparative Constitutional Law Vilnius, 4–5 October 2019 LE CONCEPT DE DÉMOCRATIE DÉVELOPPÉ PAR LA JUSTICE CONSTITUTIONNELLE XXIIe Congrès international de droit constitutionnel européen et comparé Vilnius, les 4–5 octobre 2019 EDITORS: Rainer Arnold, Ingrida Danėlienė Vilnius 2020 The bibliographic information about the publication is available in the National Bibliographic Data Bank (NBDB) of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania All rights reserved. None of the parts of this work nor its entirety may be reproduced, stored in information systems, or transmitted in any form without the prior consent guaranteed by the copyrights owners. The author is accountable for the professional level and language corrections. ISBN 978-9955-688-46-4 (print) ISBN 978-9955-688-47-1 (online) © Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rainer Arnold Preface 7 Dainius Žalimas Foreword 8 Rainer Arnold The concept of democracy in the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court 11 Dainius Žalimas The concept of democracy as safeguarded by the Constitution: Regional and national challenges 22 Andrej Abramović The ‘immature’ democracy and its protector 45 Luiz Cláudio Allemand Fundamental economic rights