University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Odredba člana 35., stava 1. Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima i
temeljnim slobodama iz 1950. godine (u daljem tekstu Konvencija), predviđa
da pojedinačna aplikacija Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava (u daljem tekstu
Sud), može biti podnešena od strane pojedinaca, nevladinih organizacija ili
grupa lica protiv članica Konvencije. Da bi takva aplikacija bila prihvaćena
moraju biti ispunjeni određeni uslovi, između ostalih, i uslov iscrpljenosti
unutrašnjih pravnih lijekova zemlje koja je tužena. Ovisno o državi u pitanju,
to će najćešće značiti da mora postojati pravosnažna presuda vrhovnog ili
ustavnog suda o pitanju na koje se aplikacija odnosi.
U svojoj praksi Sud je uspostavio određena pravila u odlučivanju o ovom
uslovu, te se smatra da ovom pitanju treba pristupiti sa određenom fleksibilnošću
i da ono nije automatski primjenjivo, niti apsolutno pravilo. Tako je, na primjer,
Sud utvrdio da ovaj uslov može biti ispunjen i nakon podnošenja aplikacije
Sudu, ali prije donošenja odluke o prihvatljivosti slučaja za odlučivanje pred
Sudom, ili da mogu postojati određene posebne okolnosti kada ovaj uslov ne
mora biti ispunjen.
Ovaj rad će se baviti analizom prakse Suda u odnosu na pitanje
iscrpljenosti unutrašnjih pravnih lijekova, te kako je ovo pitanje uređeno u
Bosni i Hercegovini, odnosno, kakva je procedura predviđena domaćim
zakonodavstvom za zadovoljenje ovog uslova. Obzirom na specifično ustavno
uređenje Bosne i Hercegovine i organizaciju sudova, u ovom radu će biti
analizirana procedura za zadovoljenje uslova iscrpljenosti unutrašnjih pravnih
lijekova, te će ista biti analizirana i u odnosu na presudu Baralija protiv Bosne
i Hercegovine, koja predstavlja izuzetak od pravila, obzirom da prije aplikacije
Sudu o ovom slučaju nije odlučivano na Ustavnom sudu BiH, a Sud je slučaj
prihvatio i o istom odlučivao.
Article 35, paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) of 1950 provides that an individual application
to the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) may be submitted by
individuals, non-governmental organizations, or groups of individuals against
Convention member states. In order for such an application to be accepted,
certain conditions must be fulfilled, including the condition of exhaustion
of domestic remedies in the country being sued. Depending on the country
in question, this will often mean that there must be a final judgment of the
Supreme or Constitutional Court on the issue to which the application relates.
In its practice, the Court has established certain rules in deciding on this
condition, and it is considered that this issue should be approached with a
certain flexibility and that it is not an automatic or absolute rule. For example,
the Court has determined that this condition may be fulfilled even after the
application is submitted to the Court, but before a decision is made on the
admissibility of the case for decision before the Court, or that there may be
certain special circumstances when this condition does not have to be fulfilled.
This paper will analyze the Court’s case law regarding the issue of
exhaustion of domestic remedies, and how this issue is regulated in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, i.e., what procedure is provided for by domestic legislation to
satisfy this condition. Given the specific constitutional arrangement of Bosnia
and Herzegovina and the organization of courts, this paper will analyze the
procedure for fulfilling the condition of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and
it will be analyzed in relation to the Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case,
which represents an exception to the rule, since the Constitutional Court of
Bosnia and Herzegovina did not decide on this case before the application to
the Court was made, and the Court accepted and decided on it.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.