003-4820451-5878717

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 217 (2014)   15.07.2014   Bosnia and Herzegovina must establish a political   system for elections without discrimination   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Zornić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application   no. 3681/06), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held:   by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in   conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on   Human Rights as regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for election to the House of Peoples of   Bosnia and Herzegovina ; and,   unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of   discrimination) to the European Convention as regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for election   both to the House of Peoples as well as to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   The case concerned Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for election to the House of Peoples and the   Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina because she refuses to declare affiliation to any particular   ethnic group but declares herself as a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in accordance with the   Constitution, only those who declare affiliation with the so-called “constituent peoples” (namely,   Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) are entitled to stand for election.   The Court held that Ms Zornić’s case was identical to the Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina   case of December 2009 concerning the inability of a Roma and a Jew to stand for elections to the   House of Peoples and to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It therefore came to the same   conclusions as in that case, namely that the constitutional provisions which prevented Ms Zornić –   and the applicants in that case – from running for election were on the ground of origin and had   been put in place to ensure peace following a brutal conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between   and 1995 marked by genocide and “ethnic cleansing”. However, noting the significant positive   developments in the country and the existence of other mechanisms of power-sharing which did not   automatically lead to the total exclusion of representatives of other communities, the Court held   that Ms Zornić’s continued ineligibility to stand for election had lacked objective and reasonable   justification, amounting to a discriminatory difference in treatment.   The nature of the conflict was such that the approval of the “constituent peoples” was necessary to   ensure peace. However , the Court considered that, even more so now, more than 18 years after the   end of the tragic conflict, there could no longer be any reason for the contested constitutional   provisions to be maintained. Indeed, the time had come for a political system which would provide   every citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the right to stand for elections to the Presidency and   the House of Peoples without discrimination based on ethnic affiliation and without granting special   rights for “constituent peoples” to the exclusion of minorities or citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   This would necessarily require constitutional changes.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Principal facts and complaints   The applicant, Azra Zornić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1957 and lives in   Sarajevo. She actively participates in the political life of her country, notably having stood for   election in the 2002 parliamentary elections as a candidate of the Social Democratic Party of Bosnia   and Herzegovina.   The Bosnian Constitution makes a distinction between different categories: the so-called   “constituent peoples” (Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs), “Others” (members of ethnic minorities) and   citizens (those who do not declare affiliation with any particular ethnic group because of   intermarriage, mixed parenthood or other reasons). In the former Yugoslavia no objective criteria   such as language or religion was required to determine one’s ethnicity, people deciding themselves   their ethnic affiliation. This traditional system of self-classification has been assumed under the   Bosnian Constitution as it stands today. In accordance with the Constitution, only those who declare   affiliation with a “constituent people” are entitled to stand for election to the House of Peoples and   the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   Ms Zornić complained that, under the Constitution, she was ineligible to stand for election to the   House of Peoples and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina because she refuses to declare   affiliation to any particular ethnic group, but declares herself simply as a citizen of Bosnia and   Herzegovina, alleging in particular that this amounted to discrimination. She relied on Article 14   (prohibition of discrimination), Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and Article 1 of   Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) to the European Convention.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 December 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), President,   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus),   Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),   and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   As concerned the admissibility of Ms Zornić’s case, the Court noted in particular that she had not   used a constitutional appeal before lodging her application with the European Court of Human   Rights. However, given the Constitutional Court’s approach to the matter in a similar case2 in which   it declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine a discrimination complaint concerning ineligibility to   stand for election to the Presidency on the ground of ethnic origin, the Court considered that a   constitutional appeal was not an effective remedy for Ms Zornić’s complaints. It therefore rejected   the Government’s allegation that Ms Zornić had failed to exhaust national remedies.   As regards Ms Zornić’s complaint about ineligibility to the House of Peoples of Bosnia and   Herzegovina, the Court found that, whatever her reasons were for not declaring affiliation with any   Decision no. AP 1945/10 of 29 June 2010.   particular group (intermarriage, mixed parenthood or simply that she wished to declare herself as a   citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina ), she should not be prevented from standing for such elections on   account of her personal self-classification, no objective criteria being required under the   Constitution for one’s ethnic affiliation.   Indeed, the Court had already found that the very same constitutional provisions preventing   Ms Zornić from running for election had amounted to discriminatory treatment in the case Sejdić   and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06) of December 2009   concerning the inability of a Roma and a Jew to stand for parliamentary elections. The Court   considered that Ms Zornić’s case was identical to the Sejdić and Finci case. Like the applicants in that   case Ms Zornić was excluded from running for election to the House of Peoples on the ground of her   origin.   In the judgment Sejdić and Finci, the Court held that such exclusion had pursued an aim broadly   compatible with the European Convention, namely that of restoring peace. The nature of the conflict   in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995, marked by genocide and “ethnic cleansing”, had   been such that the approval of the “constituent peoples” had been necessary to ensure peace and   could explain the absence of representatives of other communities – such as local Roma and Jewish   communities – at the peace negotiations. However, noting the significant positive developments in   the country after the Dayton Peace Agreement3 and the existence of other mechanisms of power-   sharing which did not automatically lead to the total exclusion of representatives of other   communities, the Court held that the applicants’ continued ineligibility to stand for election to the   House of Peoples had lacked objective and reasonable justification, amounting to a discriminatory   difference in treatment in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   For the same reasons as in that case, it therefore concluded that there had been a violation of   Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as well as a violation of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 12 resulting from Ms Zornić’s continued ineligibility to stand for election to the House   of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   It considered, however, that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had also   been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone as regards the House of the Peoples.   As regards Ms Zornić’s complaint about ineligibility to the Presidency of Bosnia and   Herzegovina the Court similarly reiterated the findings of the Sejdić and Finci case which had held   that the constitutional provisions preventing the applicants from running for election to the   Presidency had been discriminatory, seeing no reason to depart from that jurisprudence in Ms   Zornić’s case. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12   as regards Ms Zornić’s ineligibility to stand for election to the Presidency.   Article 46 (binding force and implementation)   The finding of a violation in Ms Zornić’s case had been the direct result of the national authorities’   failure to introduce constitutional and legislative measures to ensure compliance with the judgment   in the Sejdić and Finci case, which has been under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of   the Council of Europe, the body responsible for the supervision and implementation of the   judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, since 2009. Given that delay, the Court, like the   Committee of Ministers, was anxious to encourage the speediest and most effective resolution of   this situation.   The nature of the conflict was such that the approval of the “constituent peoples” was necessary to   ensure peace. However, now, more than 18 years after the end of the tragic conflict in Bosnia and   Herzegovina, there could no longer be any reason for the contested constitutional provisions to be   On 14 December 1995 the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, (“the Dayton   Peace Agreement”) entered into force which put an end to the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.   maintained. The Court considered that the time had come for a political system which would provide   every citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the right to stand for elections to the Presidency and   the House of Peoples without discrimination based on ethnic affiliation and without granting special   rights for “constituent peoples” to the exclusion of minorities or citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   This would necessarily require constitutional changes.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   Ms Zornić had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction and therefore the Court made no such   award.   Separate opinion   Judge Wojtyczek expressed a partly dissenting opinion. This opinion is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is available also in French and in the   official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   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 Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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.   4