The President of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mirsad Ćeman, warned today that the institution is facing serious consequences due to the lack of judges, stating that the number of unresolved cases at the end of last year reached 13,625, while before the emergence of, as he said, the judicial deficit, there were less than 3,000.

At a press conference, where the results of the Court’s work for 2025 were presented, Ćeman said that 5,671 cases were received last year, while 2,503 were resolved, emphasizing that without a functional Grand Chamber, the Court is unable to respond to the influx of cases within reasonable deadlines.

According to him, the Grand Chamber previously resolved more than 99 percent of cases, but due to the lack of judges, the Court now decides mainly in plenary sessions, which further slows down its work.

“I order the authorities to elect the missing judges, elect them on time. Do not let anyone, motivated by anything, question the constitutionality, legality and legitimacy of the Constitutional Court,” said Ćeman, assessing that the Court, even in its reduced composition, remains constitutional, legal and legitimate.

He emphasized that the continuous influx of appeals from all over Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that citizens still have confidence in the Constitutional Court, but that due to the existing circumstances, the Court cannot decide within a reasonable time, which, as he stated, leads to increasingly frequent appeals by citizens to the European Court of Human Rights due to violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.

Ćeman said that the Court currently has more than 5,000 draft decisions prepared, but that it cannot decide on them due to limited resources and work exclusively in plenary sessions.

He especially thanked the international judges, stating that without their additional engagement, the Court would almost reach the verge of complete paralysis.

Vice President of the Court Valerija Galić warned that the failure to implement decisions of the Constitutional Court represents an issue of constitutional order, the rule of law and citizens’ trust in state institutions.

She recalled that the decisions of the Constitutional Court, according to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have a final and binding character, but that they have been facing the problem of non-implementation for years, citing as examples cases related to the Statute of the City of Mostar, the Law on the Sale of Apartments with Tenancy Rights and the Election Law of BiH.

“Certain authorities continued to apply provisions that the Constitutional Court had previously declared unconstitutional, while in the appellate cases, systemic problems were recorded regarding the length of court proceedings, the execution of final judgments, old foreign currency savings, military apartments and other issues,” stated Galić.

She stated that it was precisely the non-implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court that led to the European Court of Human Rights also establishing human rights violations in cases from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Speaking about statistics from Strasbourg, she said that in 2023, the European Court considered 312 cases from BiH, of which 306 were declared inadmissible or struck out of the list, while in 2024, out of 142 applications, 140 were rejected or struck out.

According to the data she presented, in 2025, the European Court received 328 applications from BiH, of which 326 were declared inadmissible or struck out of the list, while two judgments were issued in which a violation of the rights under the European Convention was established.

International judge Angelika Nußberger assessed that the Constitutional Court of BiH is a specific and advanced European institution due to its combined composition of domestic and international judges and the direct application of the European Convention on Human Rights.

She said that international judges are actively participating in the work on all cases and administrative issues after the Court was left without a full composition, which further slowed down the processes due to the need to translate a large number of materials.

“For outside observers, despite the fact that two judges are missing, the work is not blocked. The Constitutional Court is working, and its jurisprudence is relevant for the entire region and Europe,” said Nußberger.

Judge Larisa Velić emphasized the importance of the transparency of the work of the Constitutional Court and bringing the institution closer to the public through the publication of decisions, newsletters and professional publications.

She stated that the Court, through its practice, decides on the most important socio-political issues, including state property, forests, agricultural land, water resources and the issue of the jurisdiction of different levels of government.

Speaking about the role of the High Representative, Velić recalled that the Constitutional Court had taken the position back in 2000 that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the powers of the High Representative, but that it could assess the constitutionality of laws passed by the High Representative.

Speaking about the composition of the Constitutional Court, Mirsad Ćeman emphasized that judges are not elected as representatives of the people, but according to the territorial principle defined by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“Constitutional judges are not elected as representatives, nor as members of any people, but two are elected from the Republika Srpska and four from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” said Ćeman.

He added that the Constitution and the Rules of the Court do not require ethnic composition in decision-making, but only the existence of the necessary majority, emphasizing that the vote of each judge is equally valid, regardless of whether it is a domestic or international judge.

Speaking about state property, Judge Velić recalled that the Constitutional Court had previously taken the position that the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina should adopt a law on state property, and that the temporary ban on the disposal of state property defined what is considered state property.

According to her, state property consists of immovable property that belonged to Bosnia and Herzegovina based on the succession of the former SFRY, as well as property that was disposed of by the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including forests, rivers, agricultural land and water.

Velić warned that the failure to adopt a law on state property continues to pose a serious problem, especially in the context of the implementation of the Law on Southern Interconnection, adding that she expects new cases before the Constitutional Court regarding this issue.

She also emphasized that the eventual conversion of land through spatial plans or expansion of construction zones does not mean an automatic change of ownership.

She reminded that according to the previous Law on construction land, the municipality became the holder of the right of disposal after the conversion of the land, but that such a solution is no longer possible since 2003.

At the conference, the “Yearbook of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2025” was presented, as well as an overview of the work and functioning of the Court in the current circumstances.