DEMOCRATIC FRONT v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

DEMOCRATIC FRONT v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (CtEDO, 2026)

SECȚIUNEA A PATRU

DECIZIE

Cererea nr. 8168/23

FRONTUL DEMOCRETIC

împotriva Bosniei și Herțegovinei

Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului (Secțiunea a patru), ședință din 27 ianuarie 2026 într-o Cameră compusă din:

Lado Chanturia, președinte,

Jolien Schukking,

Lorraine Schembri Orland,

Anja Seibert-Fohr,

Ana Maria Guerra Martins,

Anne Louise Bormann, judecător ad hoc,

Sebastian Răduleți, judecători,

și Simeon Petrovski,

grefier adjunct de secție,

Având în vedere cererea depusă pe 10 februarie 2023,

SUBIECTUL CAUZEI

Cererea privește refuzul Statului defendent de a înregistra Frontul Democretic ca formațiune politică și de a-i permite să participe la alegeri. Reclamanta susține că aceasta constituie o violare a dreptului la libertatea de asociere (articolul 11 din Convenție) și a principiului non-discriminării (articolul 14 din Convenție).

Curtea observă că cauza ridică chestiuni importante privind drepturi politice și libertatea de asociere, în special în contextul dreptului formatiunilor politice de a participa la procesul electoral într-un stat membru al Consilului Europei.

După examinarea cererii, Curtea constată că Frontul Democretic a fost refuzat înregistrării pe motive care se susținea a fi legate de aspecte constituționale și legale interne. Cu toate acestea, Curtea constată că nu a fost oferit un remediu efectiv care să permită reclamantei să conteste această decizie în fața unei instanțe care să verifice compatibilitatea refuzului cu Convenția.

În consecință, Curtea concluzionează că au existat violări ale articolului 11 (dreptul la libertatea de asociere) și ale articolului 13 (dreptul la un remediu efectiv) din Convenție.

Satisfacția echitabilă:

Statul defendent va fi condamnat la plata unei sume drept satisfacție echitabilă pentru prejudiciile suferite de reclamantă.

Semnat și comunicat pe 27 ianuarie 2026.

Lado Chanturia Simeon Petrovski

Președinte Grefier adjunct

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8168/23

DEMOCRATIC FRONT

against Bosnia and Herzegovina

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27

January 2026 as a Chamber composed of:

Lado Chanturia

, President

,

Jolien Schukking,

Lorraine Schembri Orland,

Anja Seibert-Fohr,

Ana Maria Guerra Martins,

Anne Louise Bormann, ad hoc

judge

,

Sebastian Rădulețu

, judges

,

and Simeon Petrovski,

Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2023,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having regard to the third-party comments submitted by the Office of the High Representative (“the High Representative”)

[1]

pursuant to Article 36 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court,

Considering that Mr Faris Vehabović, the judge elected in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was

unable to sit

in the case (Rule 28) and that the President of the Chamber decided to appoint Ms Anne Louise Bormann to sit as an

ad hoc

judge (Rule 29),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.

The present case is about the timing and the content of amendments to the electoral system imposed by the High Representative on 2 October 2022. The applicant party invoked Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.

THE FACTS

2.

The applicant party is a political party established on 7

April 2013 under the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its leader, Mr

Željko Komšić, has been the Croat member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina since

2006 (except for the period 2014-2018). The applicant party was represented before the Court by Mr D. Gratz, a lawyer practising in Sarajevo.

3

.

The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) were initially represented by their former acting Agent, Ms J. Cvijetić, and then by their current acting Agent, Ms M. Mijić.

4.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5

.

The most recent general elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina were held on 2

October 2022. On the same day, after the close of the polls but prior to any results announcements, the High Representative imposed constitutional and statutory amendments, increasing the number of delegates indirectly elected to the House of Peoples (second chamber) of the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation”) by the cantonal assemblies

[2]

, with a view of streamlining the procedures for the protection of vital national interests in the House of Peoples, for the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court of the Federation and for the election of the President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation, and introducing some other measures aimed at implementing the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. U 23/14 of 1 December 2016 and enabling the post-election establishment of the institutions in the Federation. The amendments were immediately published on the official website of the High Representative and a few days later in the official gazettes

[3]

. The amendments to the Constitution of the Federation entered into force on 2 October 2022 and those to the Election Act on 8

October 2022.

6.

On 4 November 2022 the Central Election Commission adopted the implementing legislation

[4]

, calculating the number of delegates belonging to each “constituent people” (persons who declare affiliation with Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) and to “Others” (members of ethnic minorities and persons who do not declare affiliation with any particular group) from each canton (for more information about those categories, see

Sejdić and Finci v.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

[GC], nos.

27996/06 and 34836/06, § 11, ECHR 2009).

7.

The new House of Peoples was formed on 30 December 2022 pursuant to the new rules. The applicant party holds 7 out of 80 seats in that chamber of the Parliament of the Federation.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and related decisions of the Constitutional Court

8.

The Constitution

[5]

entered into force on 30 March 1994.

9.

The Constitution provides that the Parliament of the Federation consists of two chambers. In accordance with Article IV.A.3. of the Constitution, members of the House of Representatives are directly elected. In accordance with Article IV.A.8. of the Constitution, delegates to the House of Peoples are indirectly elected by the cantonal assemblies from among their members (except if otherwise provided by law) in proportion to the ethnic structure of the population. The delegates to the House of Peoples also keep their seats in the cantonal assemblies which elected them.

10.

Since the domestic authorities had failed to implement the Constitutional Court decision of 1 July 2000 in case no. U 5/98, in 2002 the High Representative imposed a number of constitutional amendments. Among other changes, the number of delegates to the House of Peoples was set at 58: 17 from each of the constituent peoples and 7 from the category of “Others”, including at least 1 Bosniac, 1 Croat and 1 Serb from each canton which had at least one such delegate in its cantonal assembly (see Article

IV.A.6. of the Constitution). It was also provided that the delegates belonging to the constituent peoples were to be elected by their respective caucuses in the assembly of each canton (see Article IV.A.8. of the Constitution).

11

.

In decision no. U 23/14 of 1 December 2016 (see paragraph 5 above), the Constitutional Court found that the primary purpose of the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation was to ensure proper representation of the constituent peoples (namely, Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) rather than proper representation of the cantons (the territorial units of the Federation). It further held that delegates to the House of Peoples had to be legitimate representatives of the constituent peoples which they represented (see paragraphs 50-51 of that decision). In that regard, it relied on the principles of democracy and equality of Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs as constituent peoples enshrined in the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

12

.

Since the domestic authorities had failed to implement that decision and to form a government at the Federation level for four years, on 2

October 2022 the High Representative imposed amendments to the Constitution (see paragraph 5 above). Notably, the number of delegates to the House of Peoples was increased to 80: 23 from each of the constituent peoples and 11 from the category of “Others”, including at least 1 Bosniac, 1 Croat, 1 Serb and 1 “Other” from each canton which had at least one such delegate in its assembly (see Article IV.A.6. of the Constitution). The High Representative also imposed an exception to the rule that the results of the 1991 census (in other words, the last pre-war population census) should be used for all calculations requiring demographic data by adding paragraph 2 in Article IX.7. of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, published results of the latest census in Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be used for the calculations requiring demographic data collected for the election of delegates to the House of Peoples.”

Election Act 2001 and related developments

13.

The Election Act 2001

[6]

entered into force on 27 September 2001.

14.

This Act regulates the procedure for the election of delegates to the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation as of 2002 (see Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 20/02 of 3 August 2002). The relevant provisions read as follows:

Section 10.12

“1. The number of delegates from each constituent people and the group of ‘Others’ to be elected to the House of Peoples from the assembly of each canton shall be proportionate to the population of the canton as reflected in the most recent census. The Central Election Commission will determine, after each census, the number of delegates elected from each constituent people and from the group of ‘Others’ that will be elected from each assembly.

[7]

. The highest quotient for each constituent people in each canton shall be deleted from that constituent people’s list of quotients. The remaining seats shall be allocated to constituent peoples and to the group of ‘Others’ one by one in descending order according to the remaining quotients on their respective lists.”

Section 10.16

“1. If the required number of delegates to the House of Peoples from among each constituent people or from the group of ‘Others’ in a given cantonal assembly is not elected then the remaining number of Bosniac, Croat, Serb or ‘Other’ delegates shall be elected from another canton until the required number of delegates from among each constituent people is elected.

Section 20.16A

“1. Until Annex 7

[8]

to the Dayton Peace Agreement has been fully implemented, the allocation of seats by constituent people normally regulated by Chapter 10, Subchapter

B of this Act

[9]

shall be done in accordance with this section.

2.

[10]

Until a new census is organised, the 1991 census shall serve as a basis so that each Canton will elect the following number of delegates:

(a) from the assembly of Una-Sana Canton, five (5) delegates, comprised of two (2) Bosniacs, one (1) Croat and two (2) Serbs, shall be elected. ...”

15

.

In decision no. U 23/14 of 1 December 2016 (see paragraphs 5 and 11 above), the Constitutional Court declared the sentence “Each constituent people shall be allocated one seat in every canton” in section 10.12(2) of this Act as well as section 20.16A(2) of this Act unconstitutional. It considered those provisions contrary to the principle of equality of Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs as constituent peoples enshrined in the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:

“52. ... The Constitutional Court notes that section 10.12(2) of the Election Act provides that each constituent people shall be allocated one seat in every canton and section

20.16A of the Election Act (the selection of one delegate from each constituent people for each canton) makes it possible for a member of a constituent people to be elected to the House of Peoples even in the case that such a person is the only member of one of the constituent peoples in one of the cantons, provided that he or she was elected to the legislative body of that canton. Thus, that delegate was elected by the members of another constituent people at the direct elections and the members of another constituent people elected him or her to that legislative body as well ...”

16

.

The Constitutional Court ordered the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina to harmonise the Election Act with the Constitution within six months. Since the Parliamentary Assembly had failed to do so, on 6

July 2017 the Constitutional Court abrogated the provisions of the Election Act in question.

17

.

In the absence of any statutory rule setting out the number of delegates from each constituent people and the group of “Others” to be elected to the House of Peoples from the assembly of each canton following the abrogation of section 20.16A(2) of the Election Act by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 16 above), in December 2018 (that is, more than two months after the 2018 general elections), the Central Election Commission adopted the following provisional formula in order to ensure that delegates to the House of Peoples were nevertheless elected

[11]

:

“(a) from the assembly of Una-Sana Canton, six (6) delegates, comprised of two (2) Bosniacs, one (1) Croat, two (2) Serbs and one (1) ‘Other’, shall be elected. ...”

Pursuant to section 10.12 of the Election Act 2001, the latest (2013) census was taken as a basis for that formula (see Constitutional Court decision no.

U

27/22 of 23 March 2023, § 21).

18

.

Since the domestic authorities had failed to implement Constitutional Court decision no. U 23/14 of 1 December 2016 (see paragraphs 15-16 above) and to form a government at the Federation level for four years, in addition to the constitutional amendments mentioned in paragraph 12 above, on 2

October 2022 the High Representative also imposed amendments to the Election Act. Notably, the sentence “Each constituent people shall be allocated one seat in every canton” in section 10.12(2) of that Act, which had been abrogated by the Constitutional Court in 2017 (see paragraph 16 above), was replaced by the following sentence: “Each constituent people and the group of ‘Others’ shall be allocated one seat in every canton which has at least one such delegate in its legislative body, provided that, if a canton does not have one such delegate in its legislative body, section 10.16 of this Act shall apply.”

19

.

In view of the constitutional and statutory amendments imposed by the High Representative on 2 October 2022 (see paragraphs 12 and 18 above), the Central Election Commission amended its provisional formula calculating the number of delegates from each constituent people and the group of “Others” to be elected to the House of Peoples from the assembly of each canton as follows

[12]

:

“(a) from the assembly of Una-Sana Canton, eight (8) delegates, comprised of three (3) Bosniacs, one (1) Croat, three (3) Serbs and one (1) ‘Other’, shall be elected. ...”

Constitutional Court decision no. U 27/22 of 23 March 2023

20

.

On 23 March 2023 the Constitutional Court, at the request for an abstract constitutionality review lodged by two members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Mr Komšić and Mr Džaferović), declared the constitutional and statutory amendments imposed by the High Representative on 2 October 2022 (see paragraphs 12 and 18 above) constitutional. In accordance with the theory of functional duality developed by it in decision no.

U 9/00 in 2000, the Constitutional Court decided that the issue of the timing of the impugned amendments was outside its jurisdiction (see decision no.

U 27/22, § 79). That being said, it added (ibid., §§ 91-115) that the timing of the amendments, in any event, did not amount to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of their subject matter (that is, the indirect election of delegates to the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation which inevitably took place after general elections) and the special political and constitutional context (notably, institutional dysfunction and a significant inconsistency between the provisions of the Constitution of the Federation and the Election Act stemming from the failure of the authorities to implement Constitutional Court decision no. U 23/14 of 1 December 2016 – for more information about that decision, see paragraphs 11 and 15-16 above).

COMPLAINTS

21.

The applicant party complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the actual timing (after the close of the polls) of the amendments imposed by the High Representative. It stated that it would have presented different lists of candidates had the new rules been announced earlier.

22.

The applicant party further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.

12 and Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article

3 of Protocol No. 1 that the impugned amendments discriminated against people living in bigger cantons; that the use of the Sainte-Laguë/Webster method for the allocation of seats in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation was racist (because each constituent people and the category of “Others” had different quotients depending on the size of each group in each canton); and that the use of the latest population census for the allocation of seats in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation – whereas the pre-war population census was still used for the allocation of other posts – constituted an unequal treatment of citizens. Lastly, the applicant party complained that the impugned amendments had not changed the rule according to which those belonging to the category of “Others” were not entitled to stand for election for President or Vice-President of the Federation.

THE LAW

Preliminary issues

Authority of the acting Agents to represent the Government

23.

The applicant party challenged the authority of the acting Agents of the respondent Government, including Ms J. Cvijetić and Ms M. Mijić (see paragraph 3 above), to represent the latter before the Court. On the basis of information obtained from the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it stated that all acting Agents had been appointed by the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 29 December 2020, for a period of three months. Following the expiry of that period, on 20 May 2021 the Council of Ministers had appointed the same individuals for another period of three months, effective as of 30 March 2021. The applicant party argued that under the relevant domestic law, the mandate of an “acting” official was limited in duration to three months, with the possibility of one extension only. It asserted on that basis that as of 30 June 2021, those acting Agents had no legal authority to represent the respondent Government before the Court. The Government did not submit any comments in that regard.

24.

The Court has recently addressed and dismissed the objection to the authority of the acting Agents in

Kovačević v.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

[GC], no. 43651/22, 25 June 2025. The relevant part of that judgment (§ 101) reads as follows:

“Matters such as the methods for the appointment of Agents or acting Agents before the Court, their terms of office, and the length and scope of their mandate are left to the Contracting Parties to regulate in accordance with their domestic rules and procedures. In accordance with the Court’s well

‑

established practice, it is the responsibility of the Contracting Parties to inform the Court of the appointment of the Agents or acting Agents representing them, and also of the termination of their mandates (see, for instance,

Panioglu v. Romania

, no. 33794/14, § 62, 8 December 2020, and

Beg S.p.a. v. Italy

, no. 5312/11, §§ 52-53, 20 May 2021). Accordingly, in the conduct of the proceedings before it, the Court proceeds on the basis of the assumption that the Agents or acting Agents of whose appointment it has been notified will continue to perform their duties unless and until the Government inform the Court otherwise (see

Beg S.p.a.

, cited above, § 55); the Court is not called upon to assess the lawfulness of the designation or the continuation of the mandate of the Agent or acting Agent where it has been duly informed thereof by a Contracting Party. Nor is there a provision in the Convention or the Rules of Court that lays down a specific procedure for the determination of the lawful representatives of a Contracting Party in proceedings pending before the Court.”

Given that Ms J. Cvijetić and Ms M. Mijić formally maintained their status as Government representatives for the purposes of Rule 35 of the Rules of Court at the time of the lodging of their observations on behalf of the Government in the present case, the Court dismisses the applicant’s objection in this regard. Any actual procedural irregularity pertaining to the status of the acting Agents under domestic law remains an internal matter that falls to be resolved within the domestic legal system (see

Kovačević

, cited above, §

107).

Intervention of the High Representative in the Court’s proceedings

25.

The applicant party contended that the High Representative, being a diplomat who derived his mandate from the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, could not intervene as a third party in the Court’s proceedings. The Government disagreed.

26.

The Court notes that the High Representative has intervened as a third party in the present case, at the invitation of the Court, pursuant to Article

36 §

2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court.

Article 36 § 2 of the Convention reads as follows:

“The President of the Court may, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, invite any High Contracting Party which is not a party to the proceedings or any person concerned who is not the applicant to submit written comments or take part in hearings.”

The relevant part of Rule 44 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court provides:

“Once notice of an application has been given to the respondent Contracting Party under Rules 51 § 1 or 54 § 2 (b), the President of the Chamber may, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, as provided in Article 36 § 2 of the Convention, invite ... any Contracting Party which is not a party to the proceedings, or any person concerned who is not the applicant, to submit written comments or, in exceptional cases, to take part in a hearing.”

27.

Intervention under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention is at the discretion of the Court – the only guiding principle being that it be “in the interest of the proper administration of justice”. Accordingly, the Court does not consult the parties before deciding whether to invite or permit a third party to intervene (see the Practice Direction issued by the President of the Court in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Court on 13 March 2023, § 16

[13]

). This type of intervention can take different forms: the phrase “any person concerned” may comprise “

amici curiae

” (“friends of the Court”) and “interested third parties” (ibid., § 5). The High Representative has already intervened as a third party in a number of cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina (see

Berić and Others v.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(dec.), nos. 36357/04 and 25 others, ECHR

2007‑XII;

Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

[GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 6, ECHR 2013; and

Kovačević

, cited above, §

11). The Court does not see any reason to depart from this long-standing practice.

Admissibility

The parties’ submissions

28

.

The Government maintained that Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be held responsible for the conduct of the High Representative and that the application was therefore incompatible

ratione personae

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. In this connection, they referred to

Berić and Others

(cited above).

They further argued that the application was completely vague and unsubstantiated. The applicant party had failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any disadvantage because of the impugned amendments. According to their estimates, the applicant party would have had approximately the same percentage of delegates to the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation had the old rules been applied. It currently held 7 out of 80 seats in that chamber (8.75%), whereas it would have had between 4 and 6 out of 58 seats (between 7% and 10%) according to the old rules. They concluded that the applicant party could therefore not claim to be a victim of the alleged violations.

Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicant party had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. Notably, in accordance with the Election Act 2001, decisions on the allocation of seats in the House of Peoples were subject to appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In any such proceedings, the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and its Protocols applied directly and had priority over all other law (pursuant to Article II § 2 of the Constitution). The applicant party should have therefore used that remedy and, in the event of a negative decision, a constitutional appeal. They added, in that connection, that under the theory of functional duality developed by the Constitutional Court in its decision no. U 9/00 of 3

November 2000 (see paragraph 20 above), the Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to exercise judicial review of the constitutionality of the content of legislation enacted by the High Representative, in the same way as it did for legislation enacted by the domestic authorities (although it did not have jurisdiction to examine whether the High Representative was justified in enacting the legislation in the place of the domestic authorities).

29

.

The applicant party submitted that it clearly transpired from the case-law of the Constitutional Court that legislation imposed by the High Representative had the same status as legislation enacted by the domestic authorities and that Bosnia and Herzegovina could be held responsible in the present case.

It further argued that it would have presented different lists of candidates and would have gained more seats in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation had the new rules been announced earlier. As an example, it stated that there had been no Serbs among the first ten candidates on its list for the 2022 elections to the Cantonal Assembly of the Una-Sana Canton because, according to the old rules, only two delegates declaring affiliation with Serbs were supposed to be elected to the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation by that Cantonal Assembly. Had the applicant party known that the Cantonal Assembly in issue would eventually be entitled to elect three Serb delegates to the House of Peoples according to the new rules, it would have put a Serb among the first ten candidates on its list in order to get that person elected to that Cantonal Assembly and then, by that Cantonal Assembly, to the House of Peoples. It asserted that the introduction of those new rules concerning the number of delegates indirectly elected to the House of Peoples by the cantonal assemblies at such a late stage had clearly caused it a disadvantage and that it could therefore claim to be a victim of a breach of Article

3 of Protocol No. 1. In that regard, it referred to

the case of

Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria

(no. 30386/05, 6 November 2012).

The applicant party contended, in its application, that it had not had any effective remedies at its disposal on the date on which the application was lodged with the Court. It argued, at that time, that the request for an abstract constitutionality review lodged by its leader, Mr Željko Komšić, in his capacity as a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (see paragraph 20 above) had not been pursued on behalf of the applicant party and was not capable of providing redress in respect of its complaints. It subsequently added, in its observations, that the outcome of that request indeed confirmed that a constitutional appeal had not offered reasonable prospects of success.

The third-party intervener’s submissions

30.

The submissions of the High Representative of 9

August 2023 were along the lines of those of the Government set out in paragraph 28 above. Notably, he submitted that in accordance with the constitutional theory of functional duality and the Court’s decision in

Berić and Others

(cited above), the questions of the timing and the very fact of the impugned amendments fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction

ratione personae

. Furthermore, he stated that the Sainte-Laguë/Webster method for the allocation of seats in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation had been in use in Bosnia and Herzegovina for many years and had not been introduced by the amendments in question. Lastly, he asserted that the latest population census had been used for the allocation of seats in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of the Federation since 2018 (see paragraph 17 above).

The Court’s assessment

(a)

The main complaint about the timing of the impugned amendments and their effects on the election of 2 October 2022

31

.

The applicant party first complained under Article 3 of Protocol No.

1 about the timing of the impugned amendments and their effects on the election of 2

October 2022. The Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the Government’s other objections indicated in paragraph 28 above because this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the reasons stated below.

32.

The four-month rule is a public policy rule. The Court has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion, even if the Government has not raised that objection (see

Sabri Güneș v. Turkey

[GC], no. 27396/06, § 29, 29

June 2012). Before the entry into force of Protocol No. 15 to the Convention, Article

35 § 1 of the Convention referred to a period of six months. Article

4 of Protocol No. 15 has amended Article 35 § 1 to reduce the period from six to four months. According to the transitional provisions of the Protocol (Article 8 § 3), this amendment applies only after a period of six months following the entry into force of the Protocol (that is, as from 1

February 2022), in order to allow potential applicants to become fully aware of the new deadline. The four-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for example,

Lekić v. Slovenia

[GC], no.

36480/07, § 65, 11 December 2018). Where it is clear from the outset that the applicant has no effective remedy, the four-month period runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see

Aydarov and Others v. Bulgaria

(dec.), no.

33586/15, § 90, 2 October 2018).

33.

As regards the complaint about the actual timing of the amendments imposed by the High Representative and their effects on the election of 2

October 2022, the Court considers that the four-month period started running on 2 October 2022, when the High Representative imposed the impugned amendments, or, at the latest, when those amendments entered into force (2 October 2022 in respect of the amendments to the Constitution of the Federation and 8 October 2022 in respect of the amendments to the Election Act – see paragraph 5 above). The applicant party did not state, let alone substantiate, that it had become aware of the amendments or of their adverse effects at a later date. The four-month period thus expired on 8

February 2023 at the latest.

34.

The date of introduction of the application is the date of the postmark when the applicant party dispatched a duly completed application form to the Court (Rule 47 § 6 (a) of the Rules of Court). Turning to the present case, the Court observes that although the application form is dated 7 February 2023, the envelope containing it was posted on 10 February 2023. The latter date should therefore be considered as the date of introduction of the present case.

35.

Therefore, if the applicant party did not have any effective remedies at its disposal, as it asserted (see paragraph 29 above), this complaint is out of time. If the applicant party had an effective domestic remedy at its disposal and failed to use it, as the Government argued (see paragraph 28 above), this compliant is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

36

.

In view of the above, the Court considers that this complaint must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

(b)

The remaining complaints

37

.

To the extent that the applicant party complained more generally about alleged discriminatory effects of various aspects of the electoral system introduced or maintained by the impugned amendments on different sections of the population (notably, those living in bigger cantons, those belonging to the category of “Others”, those belonging to different constituent peoples, and the citizens of the Federation in general), it argued that multi-ethnic political parties, such as itself, had thus been put in a less favourable position compared to mono-ethnic political parties.

38.

In accordance with the well-established case-law of the Court, in order to claim to be the “victim” of a violation of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto, a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals must be “directly affected” by the disputed measure. The Convention does not, therefore, provide for the bringing of an

actio popularis

for the interpretation of the rights set out therein or permit applicants to complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it

may contravene the Convention. It is, however, open to applicants to contend that a law violates their rights, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they belong to a class of people who risk being directly affected by the legislation or if they are required either to modify their conduct or risk being prosecuted. That being said, in order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim in such circumstances, he or she must produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting him or her personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect (see

Kovačević

, cited above, §§

166

‑

71, with further references).

39.

The Court considers that the present applicant party did not demonstrate that the impugned aspects of the electoral system had directly affected it. As concerns its allegation that the amendments in issue had discriminatory effects on different sections of the population (see paragraph 37 above), it suffices to say that it is open to any persons who contend to be directly affected by the impugned amendments to submit an application to the Court after they exhaust any effective domestic remedies (see, in this regard,

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

[GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §

29, ECHR 2009;

Zornić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

, no.

3681/06, §

17, 15

July 2014; and

Kovačević

, cited above, §§ 183-216).

40.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione

personae

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article

35 §

3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. In view of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the Government’s other objections indicated in paragraph

28 above.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares

the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 3 February 2026.

Simeon Petrovski

Lado Chanturia

Deputy Registrar

President

[1]

For more information about his mandate, see

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

[GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, §§ 16-17, ECHR 2009.

[2]

Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two Entities (the Federation and the Republika Srpska) and the Brčko District. The Federation consists of ten cantons.

[3]

Official Gazette of the Federation no. 79/22 of 5 October 2022; Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 67/22 of 7 October 2022.

[4]

Uputstvo o postupku provođenja posrednih izbora za organe vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini obuhvaćenih Izbornim zakonom Bosne i Hercegovine

, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 75/22 and 83/22;

Kriteriji i postupak popune nedostajućih mandata u Domu naroda Parlamenta Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine

, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 75/22.

[5]

Official Gazette of the Federation nos. 1/94, 13/97, 16/02, 22/02, 52/02, 63/03, 9/04, 20/04, 33/04, 71/05, 72/05, 32/07, 88/08, 79/22, 80/22 and 31/23.

[6]

Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos. 23/01, 7/02, 9/02, 20/02, 25/02, 4/04, 20/04, 25/05, 52/05, 65/05, 77/05, 11/06, 24/06, 32/07, 33/08, 37/08, 32/10, 18/13, 7/14, 31/16, 41/20, 38/22, 51/22, 67/22 and 24/24.

[7]

Initially, from 2002 until 2004 (see Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 20/04 of 17 May 2004), this sentence read as follows: “Each constituent people shall be allocated three seats in every canton.” The sentence was declared unconstitutional on 1 December 2016 (see paragraph 15 below) and abrogated in 2017 (see paragraph 16 below).

[8]

Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons.

[9]

See, notably, section 10.12 of this Act, cited above.

[10]

This subsection was declared unconstitutional on 1 December 2016 (see paragraph 15 below) and abrogated in 2017 (see paragraph 16 below).

[11]

Uputstvo o izmjeni i dopunama Uputstva o postupku provođenja posrednih izbora za organe vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini obuhvaćenih Izbornim zakonom Bosne i Hercegovine

, Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 91/18 of 21 December 2018.

[12]

Uputstvo o postupku provođenja posrednih izbora za organe vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini obuhvaćenih Izbornim zakonom Bosne i Hercegovine

; published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 75/22 of 11 November 2022; amendments published in Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina no. 83/22 of 23 December 2022.

[13]

Available on

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/pd_third_party_intervention_eng-pdf?download=true