The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)rejected the proposal for the imposition of a temporary measure and postponed the decision on the merits at the request of BiH Presidency member Zeljko Komsic for the review of the constitutionality of the amendments to the Constitution of the Federation of BiH (FBiH) and the Election Law imposed by the High Representative.
At the 131st plenary session, which lasted for two days, the Constitutional Court of BiH rejected the proposal for the imposition of a temporary measure and postponed the decision on Komsic‘s request regarding the amendments to the Constitution of the FBiH and the Election Law, which the High Representative in BiH Christian Schmidt imposed on the night of the elections on October 2nd.
Schmidt’s decision increased the number of representatives in the FBiH House of Peoples by changing the number of delegates appointed by the cantonal assemblies.
The imposed decisions are applied to the results of this year’s general elections, and Komsic believes that with this the high representative made a direct attack on democracy in BiH, which is an obligation from the Constitution of BiH, and in this way,he misled all voters in their intention to vote to elect their elected representatives to the legislative bodies of government they wanted, especially to the houses of the people that are elected indirectly through the cantonal assemblies.
“In this case, in which the applicants of the request Zeljko Komsic, a member of the Presidency of BiH, and Sefik Dzaferovic, at the time of the submission of the request the Chairman of the Presidency of BiH, requested an evaluation of the constitutionality of the decision of the High Representative for BiH dated October 2nd, 2022. At this session, the Constitutional Court exclusively considered and decided on the requests of the applicants for the adoption of a temporary measure. The Constitutional Court decided to reject the requests for the adoption of a temporary measure. According to the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the applicants did not clearly state, beyond the abstract level, what types of irreparable damage could arise if the challenged acts remained in force until the dispute was resolved, nor did they provide evidence of the justification of their claims. Just as the applicants assume that the usage of the contested acts (until their claims are resolved)could have negative consequences for the rule of law, the opposite could also be stated – that the acceptance of the request of the applicants for the adoption of a temporary measure could have negative consequences for the rule of law,” it was pointed out from the Constitutional Court. They believe that at this stage these arguments have not been specified, Klix.ba reports.