FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BEGIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
(Application no. 5067/23)
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
Art 1 P12 • General prohibition of discrimination • Ineligibility to stand for election to the position of Chair/Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly 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,
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. 5067/23) 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 20 January 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 Chair/Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly (the first chamber of the State Parliament; hereinafter “the House of Representatives”). 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 H. Bačvić, their acting Agent. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitution”) is an annex to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Dayton Agreement”), initialled at Dayton on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris on 14 December 1995. In accordance with the Constitution, Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two Entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (see Article I § 3 of the Constitution) – and the Brčko District in the joint ownership (condominium) of the two Entities (see Article VI § 4 of the Constitution, as amended in 2009). 6. The Constitution makes a distinction between “constituent peoples” (Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) and “Others and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina” (for more information about those categories, see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 11, ECHR 2009). At the State level, a number of power-sharing arrangements were introduced, such as a vital interest veto, an Entity veto, a bicameral system (with a House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly – the second chamber of the State Parliament – composed of five Bosniacs, five Croats and five Serbs) and a collective Head of State[1] – the Presidency – with three members: one Bosniac, one Croat and one Serb (see Articles IV and V of the Constitution). Furthermore, although no ethnic requirements apply in elections to the House of Representatives, those who do not declare affiliation with the “constituent peoples”, such as the applicant, are not eligible to serve as Chair or Deputy Chair of that chamber of the State Parliament (for the full text, see paragraph 12 below). Those arrangements make it impossible to adopt decisions against the will of the representatives of any “constituent people” (for more information, see paragraph 22 below). 7. The constitutional provisions pertaining to the ethnic privileges for the “constituent peoples” were not included in the Agreed Basic Principles which constituted the basic outline for what the future Dayton Agreement would contain (see paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the Further Agreed Basic Principles of 26 September 1995). Reportedly, the international mediators reluctantly accepted those arrangements at a later stage because of strong demands to that effect from some of the parties to the conflict (see Nystuen[2], Achieving Peace or Protecting Human Rights? Conflicts between Norms Regarding Ethnic Discrimination in the Dayton Peace Agreement, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005, pp. 192 and 240-41, and O’Brien[3], The Dayton Agreement in Bosnia: Durable Cease-Fire, Permanent Negotiation, in Zartman and Kremenyuk (eds), Peace versus Justice: Negotiating Forward- and Backward-Looking Outcomes, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005, p. 105). Fully aware that those arrangements were most probably conflicting with human rights, the international mediators considered it to be especially important to make the Constitution a dynamic instrument and provide for their possible phasing out. Article II § 2 of the Constitution, providing that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and its Protocols had “priority over all other law”, was therefore inserted (see Nystuen, cited above, p. 100). Nevertheless, the provisions in issue have neither been amended nor declared unconstitutional (for the Constitutional Court’s case-law in this regard, see paragraphs 15-18 below). 8. The applicant is a high-ranking official of the Democratic Front and a member of the House of Representatives. He does not declare affiliation with any “constituent people” and thus belongs to the constitutional category of “Others” (see paragraph 6 above). 9. On 1 December 2022 two members of the House of Representatives nominated the applicant for the position of Chair/Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives. It transpires from the minutes of the meeting of the House of Representatives of 1 December 2022, submitted by the applicant, that his nomination was not put to a vote because it did not comply with the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives (see paragraph 19 below). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICEConstitution

10. Article II § 2 of the Constitution provides:
“The rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols shall apply directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These shall have priority over all other law.”
11. In accordance with Article II § 4 of the Constitution, the enjoyment of the rights provided for in the international agreements listed in Annex I to the Constitution (including the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs under Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is secured to all persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina without discrimination on any ground. 12. Article IV § 3 (b) of the Constitution reads as follows:
“Each chamber shall by majority vote adopt its internal rules and select from its members one Serb, one Bosniac, and one Croat to serve as its Chair and Deputy Chairs, with the position of Chair rotating among the three persons selected.”
13. Article IV § 3 (d) of the Constitution provides:
“All decisions in both chambers shall be by majority of those present and voting. The Delegates [to the House of Peoples] and Members [of the House of Representatives] shall make their best efforts to see that the majority includes at least one-third of the votes of Delegates or Members from the territory of each Entity. If a majority vote does not include one-third of the votes of Delegates or Members from the territory of each Entity, the Chair and Deputy Chairs shall meet as a commission and attempt to obtain approval within three days of the vote. If those efforts fail, decisions shall be taken by a majority of those present and voting, provided that the dissenting votes do not include two-thirds or more of the Delegates or Members elected from either Entity.”
14. Article IX § 3 of the Constitution reads:
“Officials appointed to positions in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be generally representative of the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Constitutional Court’s case-law
15. In decisions nos. U 5/04 of 31 March 2006 and U 13/05 of 26 May 2006 the Constitutional Court held that the Convention did not have priority over the Constitution and that it lacked jurisdiction to rule whether the Constitution was in conformity with the Convention, although a request to that effect had been submitted by a person authorised to seek an abstract review of constitutionality (a member of the Presidency). The relevant parts of decision no. U 5/04 read as follows:
“The request lodged by Mr Sulejman Tihić, the Chair of Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of filing the request, for a review of conformity of Article IV § 1, Article IV § 1 (a), Article IV § 3 (b) and Article V § 1 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina with Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is rejected as inadmissible because the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not competent to take a decision.
... In view of the applicant’s allegations, it appears that he requests examination of conformity of certain provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Convention and its Protocols. Therefore, the Constitutional Court must establish whether it is competent to examine constitutional provisions to establish their compatibility with the European Convention. Admissibility of the present request depends primarily upon the relation between the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Convention. The status of the European Convention stems from Article II § 2 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina which clearly states that the rights and obligations provided for by the European Convention are directly applicable in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This provision points to the general phenomenon of the internalisation of the domestic legal system in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It follows from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that the domestic law must meet the requirements stipulated by the European Convention. According to Article VI § 3 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional Court ‘shall uphold this Constitution’. In order for the Constitutional Court to uphold the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it may refer to the text of that Constitution and to the European Convention which derives also from Article VI § 3 (c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In order to establish jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article VI § 3 (a) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is necessary to establish that there is ‘a dispute’ within the meaning of this constitutional provision. The present case does not involve ‘any dispute that arises under this Constitution between the Entities or between Bosnia and Herzegovina and an Entity or Entities, or between institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina’ but a possible conflict between international and domestic law. In addition, whereas in the present case an examination of conformity of certain provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Convention is requested, the Constitutional Court notes that the rights under the European Convention cannot have a superior status to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The European Convention, as an international document, entered into force by virtue of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and therefore the constitutional authority derives from the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not from the European Convention itself. Although the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not expressly provide for the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction as to the interpretation of the Constitution, it is clear that the Constitutional Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction unless it has first interpreted the relevant constitutional provisions and the provisions of the law subject to abstract review by the Constitutional Court on a request lodged with the Constitutional Court, as well as the provisions relating to its own jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court must always adhere to the text of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which in the present case does not allow for wider interpretation of its jurisdiction, in view of the obligation of the Constitutional Court to ‘uphold this Constitution’. In light of the aforesaid, the Constitutional Court concludes that it falls out of the scope of its competence to decide in the present case on the conformity of certain provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Convention and its Protocols.”
The relevant part of decision no. U 13/05 reads as follows:
“Consequently, although the subject matter of the case at hand is not a review of conformity of the provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina but of the Election Act, it cannot be ignored that the challenged provision of the Election Act, de facto, derives fully from the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which remove any doubts as to its unconstitutionality.

Outcome for Article 41: violation