Legal expert Slavko Mitrović stated that the actions of seven judges of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina have nothing to do with law, legal education, professional results, or “high moral standards.”
Addressing judges Mirsad Ćeman, Larisa Velić, Valerija Galić, Marin Vukoja, Angelika Nußberger, Helen Keller, and Ledi Bianku, Mitrović noted that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina requires judges to be distinguished legal professionals of high moral character.
“The professional and career biographies of the current seven judges—rather than the constitutionally mandated nine—meet the criterion of ‘distinguished legal professionals.’ However, this refers to their careers prior to their appointment to the Constitutional Court,” Mitrović wrote in a column for Glas Srpske titled “A letter to the judges of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
He added that these judges, with certain exceptions, have now become “a case of their own,” describing them as a special category aligned with political Sarajevo.
Mitrović emphasized that the Constitutional Court currently lacks two judges from Republika Srpska and therefore does not meet the conditions required for its functioning and decision-making.
“They continue to hold sessions and even make decisions despite the failure to meet the mandatory constitutional requirement under the provision titled ‘Composition,’ which clearly states that the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has nine members,” he said.
He argued that the Court has, from the beginning, served as an instrument for what he described as unlawful and illegitimate revision of the Constitution, through distorted interpretations and by confirming laws imposed by high representatives.
According to Mitrović, the Court has issued decisions without citing a clear constitutional basis, instead referring to formulations such as “based on established constitutional necessity” or “it may be expected,” which he described as justification used for imposed legislation.
He also recalled that key decisions were often made by outvoting Serb and Croat judges through the votes of foreign and Bosniak judges, typically following appeals submitted by Bosniak political representatives.
Mitrović further claimed that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is being violated by high representatives who, in his view, act contrary to international law.
“Instead of protecting the Constitution, the judges have protected the constructs of high representatives, imposed as laws and prohibitions, thereby also violating the Dayton Agreement,” he stated.
He singled out Christian Schmidt, arguing that Schmidt has exceeded previous actions, noting that he has not been confirmed by the United Nations Security Council as stipulated by Annex 10 of the Dayton Agreement.
Mitrović added that a request for a constitutional review has been submitted to the Court regarding provisions of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina introduced by Schmidt, including the criminal offense of “failure to implement decisions of the High Representative,” punishable by six months to five years in prison.
He concluded that, under the Constitution, only the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina has the authority to enact laws, and not any individual, including the High Representative.
Source: RTRS
