Response from the Constitutional Court regarding the consideration of the case AP – 1140/19 (appellant Davor Dragičević, represented by Ifet Feraget lawyer from Sarajevo)

The Association of Citizens “The Path of Justice” received a response from the Constitutional Court in the case AP – 1140/19

Subject: Answer to inquiry AP – 1140/19, to be submitted

Regarding: Your letter dated April 7, 2021

We bring you the letter in its entirety.

Respected,

Regarding your letter number and date, first of all I would like to point out that the President of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not, as a rule, respond to urgency issues related to resolving filed appeals, especially not to persons or groups who are not appellants.

However, appreciating the specific circumstances of the case to which your inquiry relates, we inform you that the Constitutional Court at its 117th Plenary Session held on 6th February 2020 considered the case AP – 1140/19 (appellant Davor Dragicevic, represented by Ifet Feraget lawyer from Sarajevo). As no decision was made at that session in this case, this case was to be considered at one of the next Plenary Sessions.

However, as you already know, due to the new situation caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the Constitutional Court faced the problem of scheduling its Plenary Sessions at the Court’s headquarters in the way that was planned and determined in advance. Namely, the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in addition to domestic judges, also consists of international judges who have difficulties in coming to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Due to the bad epidemiological situation, Bosnia and Herzegovina is on the list of high-risk countries, which is why international judges are not recommended to come to our country by their countries.

Due to the scope and seriousness of the allegations in the appeal AP – 1140/19 as well as the subject of the appeal itself, which requires an exhaustive discussion and analysis at the court session, this appeal could not be decided at the Plenary Session held electronically. We point out that some cases have not yet been considered at the Plenary Sessions of the Court, which were held electronically precisely for these reasons, because they require a discussion “live” at the Plenary Session of this Court.

Considering these circumstances, the Constitutional Court is actively taking all necessary actions to find a way to overcome this situation and to hold a Plenary Session at the seat of the Court as soon as possible to discuss and discuss all cases requiring such consideration, including AP-1140 / 19.

USTAVNI-SUD.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *