Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 43651/22, ECtHR (Grand Chamber), 25 June 2025

Appeal declared inadmissible due to the nature of the actio popularis, abuse of the right of appeal and failure to demonstrate direct prejudice to the right to vote.

Art. 3, Prot. 1 ECHR
Art. 14  ECHR

1. A citizen of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina who holds dual Bosnian and Croatian citizenship brought a case before the European Court, complaining that the combination of ethnic and territorial requirements set out in the Constitution for electing the House of Peoples and the State Presidency prevented him from voting for the candidates of his choice. This resulted in discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity and place of residence, as defined in Article 14 of the Convention, read alongside Articles 3 and 12 of Protocol No. 1. During the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the respondent state argued that the application was inadmissible due to a lack of victim status and an abuse of the right to apply, as well as asserting that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to review the constitutional framework resulting from the Dayton Agreements.

2. The European Court of Human Rights upheld the State's preliminary objections. It considered that the applicant had behaved in a seriously reprehensible manner during the proceedings before the Grand Chamber by making unfounded and offensive accusations against the Court's judges, government agents, and the international representative. This constituted an abuse of the right of appeal under Article 35 § 3 a). On the other hand, it dismissed the applicant's claim to victim status, ruling that the complaints did not demonstrate any direct or personal prejudice to his voting rights, but rather constituted abstract criticism of the State's constitutional architecture and electoral system based on two federal entities, of a purely action popularis nature. Although the contested territorial and ethnic restrictions had already been censured by the Court in terms of passive voting rights in the Sejdić and Finci case law, they had not produced any concrete discriminatory effects on the applicant's enjoyment of his active voting rights, according to his own allegations. Consequently, the application was declared inadmissible without examination of the merits.