European Courts of Justice
→ INJUSTICE?!?!?!?!
attack on Court's Legitimacy
→ a VALID ATTACK?!?!?!
e.g.:
Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina on 25 June 2025
Ireland – Nazi Ideology & Imperial Oppression → an abusive Constitution devoid of Justice
To: ECHR Court Justices, Government of Bosnia/Herzegovina This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Ireland Government & Judicial Council, General
The referenced case (Kovacevic, above) is certainly a complex case with ethnic issues, International (Daytona) Agreement clauses, Discriminatory claims (electoral), & many other issues – between an individual (Kovacevik) & a blend of complexities: the Bosnia/Herzegovina States (both now candidate EU States), with Bosnia & Herzegovina being composed of two Entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the
Federation) and the Republika Srpska – AND, the Brčko District which belongs to both – and a decision from the ECHR Court (based in Western Europe & its Authority being Western based) in a Judgment summary given on June25,2025, WITHOUT the FULL Judgment itself.
The issue herein is NOT to pass comment on the Judgment from the ECHR Court but to highlight the INJUSTICE that derives from newly freed Eastern European States, now within the EU, being judged by a Western based Justice Court, ECHR Court, and one that is essentially illegitimate, and criminally derelict within its Administrative structure & operation, ans does not uphold the UDHR, nor the ECHR, Conventions.
To briefly reiterate arguments submitted by the writer to the ECHR & ECJ Courts (and copied to ICJ & ICC Courts and many National Governments & Courts) on many occasions:
The EU Courts have no counter-balancing ECC (European Criminal Court), instead 'relying' on the ICC (IntCrimCourt) to provide that protection – this point alone renders EU Courts illegitimate. Despite the EU deferring Criminal issues to the ICC, the EU Courts derelictly ignore Criminal actions by Member States when considering Justice Applications to the EU Courts – thus rendering the EU as a haven for Organised Crime, from whichever Member State source: Governments, Parliaments, Courts, Judiciary, Police, Corporates, …..
The EU Courts, and especially the ECHR Court, disregard the Causal Factors of Criminal activities that give rise to a valid application, and even disregard HR violations by Member States, including criminal covers-up by members of the Judiciary – thus like Nazi Germany, a person outside the gas chamber must first take a 'shower' BEFORE appealing → Urgent/Interim Measures are thus pointless, as are refused when most needed – thus Crime is upheld & entrenched.
Moreover, the ECHR Court Administrators CRIMINALLY interfere with Justice Processes & Decisions (see email appended) - this especially with regard to Interim Measures that a person might seek to achieve some preliminary Protection from abuses within any Member State.
With regard the ICC providing protection in Criminal matters, the ICC procedures (online complaint/information process) produces NIL RESULTS from the ICC, matters are totally ignored – thus the EU Courts are disingenuous in arguing that the ICC provides protection in Criminal matters.
In short, the EU Courts are illegitimate & derelict by virtue of their GROSS FAILURE to provide Interim Measures – thus any&every EU person is Denied Justice because it is at best LONG DELAYED, but more generally is DENIED, fullstop!
Thus National Courts can get away with blatant Judicial Power abuse AND criminal covers-up, because EU & Int. Courts ignore the clear evidences.
Clear examples of this are:
- UK, CommonWealth Nations, Ireland & others utilise closed-shop, hence, by induction, corrupt & abusive Westminster-based (In)Justice systems that has NO DIRECT ACCESS to its Highest Court for HR & other Constitutional violations. Governments & Parliaments TOTALLY IGNORE these abuses.
- UK – the subpostmaster issue, which has many HR violations, multiple Prosecuting Authorities with varying standards that render a non-standard Justice system, instead of one CPS Authority, and hundreds of Trials that ignored class/common-cause action issues; Lucy Letby is another gross miscarriage of Justice in the first instance, and much further with Delaying an Appeal despite overwhelming Scientific evidence that counters the conviction.
- Ireland (see Ireland's (In)Justice History, link below) – perhaps the most EVIL of all the Westminster-based systems, with a Constitution derived under Nazi Ideology by a multiple Capital-Crimes criminal (both in War & Common-Law) who escaped multiple Death Penalties, and this Nazi Ideology blended with centuries of Imperial Oppressions such that an abusive Four Courts (Dublin), imposed late 1700s by UK, is now Six Courts: incestuous, collusive, corrupt, abusive – that at best would be a Police-State, but is in fact a Nazi State with a Gestapo-Force. This is achieved by a Chief Justice who covers-up numerous criminal issues, and criminally unleashes Gestapo-Force against those that make Lawful Justice-Process service of Int&EU Court papers on the Chief Justice himself (personal & official capacities) – thus a JUDICIAL HITLER - a Corrupt, Unlawful, Nazi, Thug - In addition, a new Judicial Council has been emasculated/trashed by O'Donnell who redacted/gutted the Bangalore Principles, the very purpose of the Judicial Council being established – thus maintaining an entrenched Nazi State
- SA having a Constitution AND Direct Access is still essentially a Westminster-based system (King's Rules-of-Court still utilised 2006) – but the Constitution is nonetheless DEFEATED by the Constitutional Court baselessly obstructing valid Direct Access Applications – which is why SA is, today, struggling to solve its problems, because the (In)Justice system supports corpOrgCrime.
Governments, globally, are becoming either Autocratic (Axis) or closed-shop 'corporatised' ('Allies') – i.e. POLARISED – and this is self-evident with Elon Musk & Putin
- Musk, now bringing corporate manipulation of governments to the ultimate of corporatised-government, through the launching of his America Party - by Musk, an SA person, that moved to Canada, then attained USA citizenship – and attained his wealth through manipulation (cleverly, admitted) of a fraudulently Super-Saturated MoneyBase&Supply – tantamount to a person finding a bag of money, the proceeds of crime, and claiming ownership – just another way of laundering dirty money.
- Putin, reacting to the West's corpOrgCrime plundering post wall-fall, with military force - simply because Putin recognises the futility of utilising illegitimate Int&EU (In)Justice systems
Thus, Reactions that have COMMON CAUSE → corpOrgCrime criminals wielding EWMDs for decades
The mere fact that Musk has attained such massive wealth ($450B+) is proof-positive that Musk is in violation of the UDHR, not solely by his having so much wealth that it grossly distorts Societies, but because his actions undermine the UDHR (Musk's interference of Ukraine's defence is an entirely separate criminal issue). Ditto: Gates, Bizos, Buffet, Branson, Sugar, …..
Neither the International, nor the EU Courts, nor National Courts address these issues
For these Reasons alone, the Judgment in the Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina on 25 June 2025 is a miscarriage of justice – a GROSS INJUSTICE!!! This is NOT to say that the Judgment is incorrect, but that the PROCESS is invalid.
The consequences are as we see daily - that the World is facing increasing tensions & conflict – yet, Governments are happy to manufacture more missiles, bombs, bullets, weapons – rather than solving the corpOrgCrime issues that give rise to the Oppressions that give 'birth' to Autocrats that necessarily are needed to combat Western (In)Justice, in self-defence.
It is far simpler to disempower the corpOrgCrime criminals by redistributing their Assets & Profits into Public ownership, thus defending the majority of People from corpOrgCrime.
Ireland is a classic example of how Freedom gained from centuries of Oppressions FAILS to generate the PROTECTIONS needed within its Freedom - instead utilising the Nation's Freedom to Oppress others so as to supplement their lifestyle.
It requires constructive Socio-Economy Engineering to solve the glut of bogus siuns, fiziks, ekonomiks – but Western Governments are locked into missiles, bombs, bullets – in reaction to the reaction of corporgcrime – a mindless downward spiral.
As always, constructive engagement is welcome.
Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., +353 (0)86 168 4318 (& whatsapp)
ATTACHMENTS
Index:
- Email from ECHR Court confirming Administrators corrupting Justice Process
- Ireland's (In)Justice History - link
- A non-exhaustive list of Gross Miscarriages of Justice
- ECHR Press Release (July 5, 2025) re attack on ECHR following Judgment Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina on 25 June 2025
- ECHR Press Release (June 25, 2025) re Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina on 25 June 2025
- WEB-SEARCH (limited information as Judgment yet to be handed-down, and attacks not clarified):- Search Bar Query: What form/nature were the attacks on ECHR re Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Strasbourg Observers – news report: Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina: the complete guidelines for the constitutional reform in B&H
Email from ECHR Court confirming Administrators corrupting Justice Process
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr Christopher David ADDINGTON
THIRD SECTION
ECHR-LE2.7R mod 17 January 2025
MLA/GFG/hpi
BY E-TRANSMISSION ONLY
Requests #5187 and #5227
Our Ref: 37605/24
Dear Sir,
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of 9 and 16 January 2025, again requesting the
European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to take measures previously
requested.
Based on the elements contained in your correspondence, the information communicated to
you on 20 December 2024 and on 2 and 6 January 2025 still stands. The Court will not, therefore, take
the action you request.
I would also inform you that the Registry of the Court will not enter into any further
correspondence on this matter unless any new facts or complaints are disclosed.
The file opened in respect of these complaints will be destroyed in due course without further
notice.
Yours faithfully,
M. Lafferty
Legal Secretary
Ireland's (In)Justice History
https://cdadd.com/legal/200-ireland-s-role-in-global-chaos
A non-exhaustive list of Gross Miscarriages of Justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases
- only a few Countries, mainly Western, and mainly utilising closed-shop, Westminster-based (In)Justice system, and only up to 2020
It should be noted that the longest list, within, is that of the UK → !!!!!!!!! - and now many multiple-times longer with the subpostmaster issue.
ECHR Press Release (July 5, 2025)
(re: attack on ECHR following Judgment in Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina on 25 June 2025)
European Court of Human Rights
issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 167 (2025)
04.07.2025
Court recalls that personal attacks on judges are attacks on the integrity and independence of the judiciary
The European Court of Human Rights denounces the public and personal attacks following the delivery of the conclusions in the Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina on 25 June 2025.
Personal attacks on Judges of the Court directly related to their judicial decision making are attacks on the integrity of the judiciary and judicial independence and undermine the rule of law in Europe.
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.
ECHR Court
issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 157 (2025)
Operative provisions in the Grand Chamber case
Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Today, at a public hearing held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, the European Court of
Human Rights delivered the operative provisions (conclusions) of its judgment in the case of Kovačević
v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 43651/22).
The case concerned the applicant's allegation that the requirements applicable to elections for the
House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly and for the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
are discriminatory against him and prevented him from voting for candidates of his choice in those
elections in 2022.
The Court upheld the Government’s objection to the admissibility of the application on the grounds
that the applicant had abused the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
European Convention on Human Rights, and that he lacked victim status under Article 14 of the
Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12.
The complete text of the Grand Chamber’s judgment will be published at a later stage. The parties and
the public will be informed of the date of publication in due course.
The delivery was also broadcast live on the European Court’s YouTube channel. The recording of the
delivery will be available from 26 June 2025 on the Court’s internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
Principal facts
The applicant, Slaven Kovačević, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, who was born in
1972. He is a political scientist and adviser to a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Bosnian Constitution has its origins in the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia
and Herzegovina (the Dayton Agreement) signed at the end of the 1992-1995 war. Since then, Bosnia
and Herzegovina has been composed of two Entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the
Federation) and the Republika Srpska – plus the Brčko District which belongs to both. Mr Kovačević
lives in Sarajevo which is situated in the Federation.
The Constitution makes a distinction between different categories of the population: the so-called
“constituent peoples” (Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) and “Others and citizens of Bosnia and
Herzegovina” (members of ethnic minorities and those who do not declare affiliation with any
particular ethnic group). No objective criteria such as language or religion are required to determine
one’s ethnicity; people decide for themselves.
The Constitution sets out power-sharing arrangements between the “constituent peoples”. For
instance, the second chamber of the State Parliament, the House of Peoples, is composed of five
Bosniacs and five Croats from the Federation and five Serbs from the Republika Srpska. The Presidency
comprises three members: one Bosniac and one Croat from the Federation and one Serb from the
Republika Srpska.
Only persons declaring affiliation with one of the three “constituent peoples” are thus entitled to run
for the House of Peoples and the Presidency. Moreover, only the voters residing in the Republika
Srpska may participate in the selection or election of Serb members of the House of Peoples
(indirectly) and the Presidency (through direct elections), whereas only the voters residing in the
2
Federation may participate in the selection or election of Bosniac and Croat members of those State
bodies (indirectly in respect of the members of the House of Peoples, and directly for the Presidency).
In contrast, no ethnic requirements apply in elections to the House of Representatives (the first
chamber of the State Parliament).
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 August 2022.
Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights
taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and on Article 1 of Protocol
No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination), Mr Kovačević complained that he was discriminated
against because of the territorial and ethnic requirements applicable to elections for the House of
Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which
prevented him from voting for the candidates of his choice in the latest legislative and presidential
elections of October 2022. He also raised other complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken
alone and/or in conjunction with Article 14, and under Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and
17 (prohibition of abuse of rights).
In its judgment of 29 August 2023, the Court held, by a majority of 6 votes to 1, that there had been
violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) of the European
Convention in respect of Mr Kovačević’s not being genuinely represented in the House of Peoples of
the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Court also held, by a majority of 6 votes to 1, that there was no need to examine either the
admissibility or the merits of the applicant’s complaint about the composition of the House of Peoples
of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Article 14 of the Convention taken in
conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The remainder of the applicant’s complaints were
declared inadmissible, unanimously.
On 14 December 2023 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the Government
of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Government of Croatia and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina were granted
leave to intervene in the written and oral proceedings as third parties in conformity with, respectively,
Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court and Article 36 § 2 of the
Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
A public hearing in the case was held on 20 November 2024.
Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:
Mattias Guyomar (France), President,
Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway),
Ivana Jelić (Montenegro),
Lado Chanturia (Georgia),
Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),
Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),
Gilberto Felici (San Marino),
Darian Pavli (Albania),
Erik Wennerström (Sweden),
Saadet Yüksel (Türkiye),
Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),
3
Peeter Roosma (Estonia),
Davor Derenčinović (Croatia),
Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine),
and also Marialena Tsirli, Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Having deliberated in private on 20 November 2024 and 25 June 2025, the Court decided as follows:
“The Court
1. Holds, by 16 votes to 1, that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention, taken alone and/or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, regarding the
indirect nature of the elections to the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
amendment of certain electoral rules on the day of the general elections of 2 October 2022 fall outside
the scope of the case as submitted to the Grand Chamber;
2. Upholds, by 16 votes to 1, the Government’s objection to the admissibility of the application on the
following grounds:
(a) by 16 votes to 1, that the applicant has abused the right of application within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention;
(b) by 12 votes to 5, that the applicant lacks victim status under Article 14 of the Convention,
in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol
No. 12.
3. Holds, unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine the remaining inadmissibility grounds relied
upon by the Government.”
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the
Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)
@ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.
Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)
4
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights
WEB-SEARCH (limited information as Judgment yet to be handed-down, and attacks not clarified)
Search Bar Query: What form/nature were the attacks on ECHR re Grand Chamber case Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
AI Overview
Following the Grand Chamber's decision in Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) reported that there were public and personal attacks directed at the judges involved in the case. These attacks, particularly those targeting the judges' decision-making process, were condemned by the Court as undermining the integrity and independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Europe.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
- Nature of the attacks:
- The attacks included public criticism and personal attacks directed at the judges involved in the Kovačević case.
- Target of the attacks:
The attacks specifically targeted the judges' decision-making within the case, suggesting disagreement with the court's conclusions.
- Consequences:
The ECHR views these attacks as detrimental to the judiciary's independence and integrity, which are fundamental pillars of the rule of law.
- Context of the case:
The Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case concerned allegations of discriminatory electoral laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly regarding the election of the House of Peoples and the Presidency. The applicant argued that these laws prevented him from voting for candidates of his choice.
- Court's decision:
The Grand Chamber ultimately found the application inadmissible, citing abuse of the right of application and lack of victim status.
Strasbourg Observers
https://strasbourgobservers.com/2023/09/12/kovacevic-v-bosnia-and-herzegovina-the-complete-guidelines-for-the-constitutional-reform-in-bh/
Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina: the complete guidelines for the constitutional reform in B&H
September 12, 2023
by Benjamin Nurkić
In the recently announced judgment in the case of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 regarding the complaint about the composition of the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly of B&H, and regarding the complaint about the elections to the Presidency of B&H. The applicant also raised arguments under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and Articles 13 and 17 of the ECHR. However, this part of the application has been declared inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14) and because the remainder of the application was manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the ECHR. The judgment in this case detected the discrimination of ‘Others’ and all citizens of B&H who are not affiliated with the constituent peoples (Bosniacs, Serbs and Croats) regarding the composition of the House of Peoples and regarding the way of electing members of the Presidency of B&H. The new judgment set old/new requirements for B&H pertaining to its constitutional order. Accordingly, B&H must amend the composition of the House of Peoples and the way members of the Presidency of B&H are elected. In this text, I argue that, with this judgment, and along with other judgments concerning the constitutional order of B&H, the ECtHR has now set complete guidelines for constitutional reform in B&H.
Summary of the judgment
Slaven Kovačević (the applicant) was born in Sarajevo, where he lives. He is a political scientist and a political adviser to a member of the Presidency of B&H. In the first order, the applicant complained that he, as a non-member of the constituent peoples, is not represented in the House of Peoples, since its positions are exclusively reserved for Bosniacs, Serbs, and Croats (Art. IV of the B&H Constitution). The concept of the ‘constituency of peoples’ prescribes that only people who affiliate with the constituent peoples can be elected to the Presidency of B&H and can be designated to the House of Peoples. The ECtHR found a violation of the applicant’s right not to be discriminated against under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. (Kovačević v. B&H, para. 62). In addition, he complained with the ECtHR because, during the last elections for the Presidency of B&H, his choice was limited since he was able only to vote for the Bosniac or Croat member of the Presidency. He was unable to vote for the Serb member of the Presidency since only citizens from the Republika Srpska (RS) have this possibility. This was the case because of the mix of territorial and ethnic criteria, that are prescribed by the B&H Constitution, on account of which citizens from the Federation of B&H (FB&H) can vote only for a Bosniac or a Croat member of the Presidency, and citizens from the RS can vote only for a Serb member of the Presidency of B&H (Art. V of the B&H Constitution). Accordingly, the applicant’s choice was restricted. The ECtHR stated that ‘no one should be forced to vote only according to prescribed ethnic lines, irrespective of their political viewpoint’, and therefore considered the right of the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to have been violated (Kovačević v. B&H, para. 74). Thus, the ECtHR identified two forms of discrimination in this case. The first discrimination concerned the applicant’s right to be represented in the House of Peoples, and the second form pertained to his active voting rights concerning the Presidency of B&H where the eligible pool of candidates was restricted to only Bosniac and Croat members in the last elections.
The ECtHR’s first requirement
In this case, the ECtHR followed its established practice regarding the composition of the Bosnian House of Peoples (see: Sejdić and Finci v. B&H; Zornić v. B&H; Pilav v. B&H; Šlaku v. B&H; Pudarić v. B&H). So, the stated requirement concerning the composition of the House of Peoples, in this case, had already been manifested in all of the above-mentioned judgments. That requirement stipulates: ‘(…) the time has come for a political system which will provide every citizen of B&H with the right to stand for elections to the Presidency and the House of Peoples of B&H without discrimination based on ethnic affiliation and without granting special rights for constituent people to the exclusion of minorities or citizens of B&H’ (Zornić v. B&H, para. 43). But, in this case, the applicant’s complaint did not concern his inability to stand for elections to the House of Peoples, but the fact that he is not represented in the House of Peoples, as a citizen who is not a member of the constituent peoples. This cannot be considered as an active suffrage right because members of the House of Peoples are elected indirectly. More precisely, members of the House of Peoples are designated from the House of Peoples of the FB&H (Bosniac and Croat members) and from the National Assembly of the RS (Serb members). Thus, citizens are not involved, directly, in the process of electing members of the Bosnian House of Peoples.
However, the ECtHR stated about the composition of the House of Peoples ‘(…) that all segments of society should be represented in the House of Peoples’ (Kovačević v. B&H, para. 55). The requirement in this judgment can be enforced in two ways. The first way is to amend the composition of the House of Peoples and to enable all citizens of B&H to stand for elections to the House of Peoples, so that all citizens will be represented in the House of Peoples. The second way is to limit the powers of the House of Peoples. After all, the House of Peoples still has the same powers as the House of Representatives. As previously explained, members of the House of Peoples are designated indirectly. Conversely, members of the House of Representatives are elected directly by citizens. Although the House of Peoples lacks democratic legitimacy, this state body has the same powers as the House of Representatives which represents all citizens of B&H. Thus, for the ECtHR, the House of Peoples with this composition ‘(…) would have been acceptable in the special case of B&H, had the powers of the House of Peoples been limited to the precisely, narrowly and strictly defined vital national interests veto of the “constituent peoples”’ (Kovačević v. B&H, para. 55). Hence, the solution to comply with the ECtHR’s requirement for the House of Peoples is to either amend the composition of the House of Peoples, or to limit its powers. Although the ECtHR did not deal with the problem of the composition of the Presidency of B&H in the Kovačević judgment, in the previous judgments the ECtHR had stated that all citizens, regardless of ethnic affiliation, should be able to stand for elections to the Presidency (Sejdić and Finci v. B&H, para. 56). Here, the ECtHR reasoned in the same manner: if a state body deals with lives of all citizens, then all citizens should be able to stand for elections to that state body.
The ECtHR’s second requirement
In the Kovačević v. B&H case, for the first time, the ECtHR found a violation of the active suffrage of citizens of B&H. Namely, citizens of the FB&H are not able to vote for the Serb member and citizens of the RS are not able to vote for the Bosniac and Croat member of the Presidency of B&H. This combination of territorial and ethnic requirements the ECtHR considered a discrimination against citizens of B&H. Therefore, the ECtHR stated, ‘(…) no one should be forced to vote only according to prescribed ethnic lines, irrespective of their political viewpoint’ (Kovačević v. B&H, para. 74). So, citizens of B&H ought to have the possibility to vote for anyone who represents their political views regardless of the ethnic affiliation of a candidate. The simplest way to implement this requirement for B&H is for it to become one electorate district. However, this would additionally require the implementation of all the above-mentioned ECtHR judgments. This means that B&H ought to amend the composition of the Presidency of B&H as well, so that the B&H Constitution would no longer exclusively award positions to members of the constituent peoples. Then, this new requirement introduced in Kovačević could be implemented, if members of the Presidency were able to be elected from the entire territory of B&H.
Dissenting opinion – the impact of the judgment on the ECtHR’s practice
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (one of the Judges in this case) wrote a dissenting opinion in this case. Her first argument concerned the admissibility of the application. The Judge argued that this application was inadmissible because the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies. More precisely, the applicant did not complain to the Central Electoral Commission and the Constitutional Court of B&H (CCB&H). The Judge pointed out that the CCB&H has broad jurisdiction, and it can review the compatibility of any law with the B&H Constitution and also with the ECHR (Kovačević v. B&H, dissenting opinion, para. 6). The dissenting Judge, therefore, wondered why the ECtHR declared the case admissible when the applicant had not complained to the CCB&H which can also review provisions of the Constitution, in accordance with the ECHR. This is a fair question. As the Judge pointed out, in many cases, the CCB&H reviews provisions of the B&H Constitution. This is a more formal approach to this problem. However, the ECtHR took a more substantial approach by considering the CCB&H’s practice in cases where the CCB&H reviewed provisions of the B&H Constitution. The CCB&H has never stated that a provision of the B&H Constitution is not in line with the Constitution (see: Tihić v. B&H; Pilav v. B&H). Therefore, the ECtHR declared ineffective any remedies before the CCB&H as far as they concern the review of provisions of the B&H Constitution because the ECtHR thought it clear what the CCB&H would have decided had the applicant filed a complaint before the CCB&H. Of course, this will raise the question in further cases, whether domestic remedies could be considered as ineffective, solely because an applicant knows that their complaint will not be accepted before a domestic court.
The second problem, in this case, according to Kucsko-Stadlmayer, involved the discrimination based on representation. The judge stated that the ECtHR in this case ‘(…) insinuates an unprecedented concept in which every voter has an individual right to candidates by whom he or she is “represented”’ (Kovačević v. B&H, dissenting opinion, para. 20). This is the essential question of this case. Did the ECtHR set too abstract standards concerning the right to be represented, which ones did it set, and what does the right to be represented mean? I understand certain arguments raised in this dissenting opinion – not every citizen can be represented individually, for example, in a parliamentary assembly. However, I do not think the ECtHR argues with this judgment that every citizen should be represented in a parliamentary assembly. Rather, I think the ECtHR argues that all segments of society ought to have a chance to be represented in the institution (like the House of Peoples) that confirms all laws. So, according to the ECtHR, if a state body deals with the lives of all citizens, then all citizens should have a chance to be represented in that institution, regardless of ethnic affiliation. Regarding the question of whether every voter (citizen) has a right to vote for anybody who represents his political views and interests, I would argue that the dissenter approached this question from an overly individual perspective. The Judge wondered, since the applicant is a political advisor of a member of the Presidency of B&H, why this specific member was not his choice in the last election (Kovačević v. B&H, dissenting opinion, para. 21). This judgment is not related only to the applicant, but to all citizens of B&H in the same position, so the question is not why the applicant could not vote for Željko Komšić (to whom the applicant is a political adviser), but why citizens of FB&H could not vote for Serb members, and citizens of the RS for Bosniac and Croat members for the Presidency of B&H.
With this judgment, the ECtHR set high standards for justifying any type of differential treatment based on ethnic criteria under Article 1 of Protocol 12 of the ECHR. Thus, for all countries that ratified this Protocol, the protection of collective rights will be a problem if they do not justify the protection with strong arguments.
The complete guidelines for the constitutional reform
With this judgment, the ECtHR has stated the complete guidelines for the constitutional reform in B&H. Prior to this judgment, the ECtHR had already ruled that B&H ought to amend the composition of the House of Peoples and the Presidency of B&H. Now, in accordance with this judgment, B&H ought to amend the way members of the Presidency of B&H are elected as well. Why are these judgments important to B&H? In the domestic context, they are important because of the position of the ECHR in the B&H Constitution which prescribes the primacy of the ECHR over all law, including the Constitution (Art. II (2) of the B&H Constitution). Thus, all institutions, including the CCB&H, ought to follow the practice of the ECtHR in B&H. In the international context, it is important because of B&H’s path towards accession to the European Union (EU). Without any constitutional reform, B&H cannot access the EU, and the ECtHR, with this judgment, has now issued complete guidelines on how to implement constitutional reform that will satisfy EU standards. However, these complete guidelines at this moment seem too optimistic, and ethnopolitical leaders in B&H probably will not implement any of the above-mentioned ECtHR judgments in B&H. Not because it is too complex to implement them, but because they will not be sanctioned for the non-implementation. Additionally, if they had implemented all these judgments, then they would have lost their powers. For example, if B&H amended the composition of the House of Peoples, then ethnopolitical leaders would not be able to obstruct political processes in B&H. Thus, ethnopolitical leaders are not keen on implementing these judgments.