FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BEGIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (No. 2)
(Application no. 16613/23)
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 1 P12 • General prohibition of discrimination • Ineligibility to stand for election to the position of President/Vice-President of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina without declaring affiliation with constitutionally defined “constituent peoples” • No objective and reasonable justification
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
3 February 2026
 
 
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Begić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2),
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Lado Chanturia, President,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Lorraine Schembri Orland,
 Anja Seibert-Fohr,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
 Anne Louise Bormann, ad hoc judge,
 Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 16613/23) against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Zlatan Begić (“the applicant”), on 13 April 2023;
the decision to give notice to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations. Considering that Mr Faris Vehabović, the judge elected in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was unable to sit in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court) and that the President of the Chamber decided to appoint Ms Anne Louise Bormann to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29),
Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant complained under Articles 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention about his ineligibility to stand for election to the position of President/Vice-President of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation”)[1]. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Tuzla. The applicant was represented by Ms S. Razić, a lawyer practising in Tuzla. 3. The Government were represented by Ms M. Mijić, their acting Agent. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. The applicant is a high-ranking official of the Democratic Front and a member of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He does not declare affiliation with any “constituent people” (persons who declare affiliation with Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) and thus belongs to the constitutional category of “Others” (for more information about those categories, see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 11, ECHR 2009). 6. Three delegates to the House of Peoples of the Federation belonging to the category of “Others” nominated the applicant for the position of President/Vice-President of the Federation. On 2 February 2023 the Central Election Commission rejected his nomination because it did not fulfil statutory requirements (see paragraph 11 below). Notably, the applicant had not been nominated by 11 delegates belonging to the constituent people caucuses of the House of Peoples of the Federation and the applicant himself did not declare affiliation with any of the constituent peoples. 7. On 8 February 2023 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina upheld that decision. 8. On 20 February 2023 the applicant and the three delegates who had nominated him (see paragraph 6 above) lodged constitutional appeals. 9. On 23 January 2025 the Constitutional Court joined their cases and delivered a decision. It found that the President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation were clearly not a “legislature” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and, therefore, declared the complaints under that Article, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, inadmissible. It relied on Boškoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 11676/04, 2 September 2004); Paksas v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 34932/04, § 72, ECHR 2011 (extracts)); and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia (nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 55-56, 4 July 2013). At the same time, it found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. Relying on the case-law of this Court (notably, Sejdić and Finci, cited above), it held that the different treatment of the appellants in relation to the election for the President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation, for the sole reason of their ethnicity, lacked an objective and reasonable justification. As a general measure, the Constitutional Court indicated that the relevant domestic authorities should adopt necessary measures aimed at eliminating discrimination against those who belonged to the constitutional category of “Others” in standing for the election for the position in issue and thus put an end to the incompatibility of the domestic law with the Convention and the Court’s case-law in that regard. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:
“28. In the present case, nothing indicates that the President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation could be considered to be a “legislature” within the meaning of the European Court’s case-law ... The Constitutional Court notes that the President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation do not have the power to initiate and adopt legislation and do not enjoy wide powers to control the passing of legislation or the power to censure the principal legislation-setting authorities. Accordingly, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is not applicable to the election for the positions of President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation.
...
36.  ... In view of the above, the Constitutional Court considers that Article IV.B.2 of the Constitution of the Federation and sections 9.13-9.15 of the Election Act, which do not allow those who belong to the category of ‘Others’ – as opposed to those who belong to the constituent peoples – to take part in the election for the positions of President and Vice-Presidents of the Federation, clearly constitute a difference in the treatment of persons in similar (or identical) situations on the grounds of ethnic origin.
... 38. Furthermore, as to whether there was an objective and reasonable justification for that treatment – in other words, whether the only way to achieve the legitimate aim and preserve peace was still the exclusion of ‘Others’ from standing for election to the positions of President and Vice-Presidents of the Entities – the Constitutional Court held in case no. U-14/12: ‘When one considers, the principles of the rule of law, the standards of human rights and the obligation of non-discrimination in their enjoyment and protection, the positive development made by Bosnia and Herzegovina ever since the signing of the Dayton Agreement, the international obligations it assumed also in the area of exercising and protecting human rights, and the clear commitment to the further democratic development, the exclusion of ‘Others’ from exercising one of the human rights which constitutes the foundation of a democratic society can no longer represent the only way in which to achieve the legitimate aim of preservation of peace. Particularly so when one bears in mind that such an exclusion was established expressly on ethnic affiliation, which cannot be objectively justified in the contemporary democratic societies built on the principles of pluralism and respect for different cultures, which the Bosnian-Herzegovinian society is and to which it aspires. This transpires also from the Preamble to the Constitution, according to which the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on respect for human dignity, liberty, and equality, and indicates that democratic governmental institutions and fair procedures best produce peaceful relations within a pluralist society’ (§ 71). The Constitutional Court further held that ‘the exclusion of the possibility for the members of ‘Others’, who are, as well as the constituent peoples, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who are guaranteed by law the right to stand for election without discrimination or restrictions in running for the positions of President and Vice-Presidents of the Entities, no longer represents the only way to achieve the legitimate goal, which is the reason why it cannot have a reasonable and objective justification’ (§ 72). 39. Therefore, in accordance with its own earlier case-law and the case-law of the European Court, the Constitutional Court concludes that the different treatment of the appellants for the sole reason of their ethnic origin lacked an objective and reasonable justification.

Outcome for Article 41: violation