SIMIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Inadmissible
Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev
1. The applicant, Mr Krstan Simić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1948 and lives in Banja Luka. 3. On 5 June 2007 the applicant was elected a judge of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). 4. Before becoming a judge the applicant was the vice-president of the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata; “SNSD”), a political party established in 1996 and based in Banja Luka, and a member of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska. 5. On 30 November 2009 a local non-governmental organisation, Parents’ Forum of the Republika Srpska (Forum Roditelja Republike Srpske), informed the Constitutional Court of a letter (and sent three pages thereof) which had been written by the applicant and sent to Mr Milorad Dodik, the president of the SNSD and the then prime minister of the Republika Srpska. The letter was not dated, but according to its contents and the applicant’s own later admission it had been written and sent in May 2009. 6. In the letter the applicant discussed the work of the Constitutional Court and made comments concerning the work of one employee of the Republika Srpska Government. The relevant part of the letter reads (the translation has been provided by the Constitutional Court): “I am not certain when it comes to the strategic (political) decisions that the international judges cannot be influenced by the OHR [Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina], but the individual judges are in no position to carry out any kind of lobbying as concerns the international judges, while in the cases such as Malbašić, the Bosniacs or Croats are not to be lobbied either, as they only have the Federation interest on their mind ... [...] In any event, I am always at your disposal but in the hassle and bustle that surrounds you I am afraid that you do not use my experience and opportunities sufficiently enough. My attitude is not to impose as I am aware of the problems you are in ... [...] high average, passed the bar exam, computer proficient, possesses knowledge of English and is a member of the SNSD party. However, in the systematization of the work duties, it should be foreseen that she retains her present duties ( ...lawsuits, has significant experience, has raised that position to high level in the Government, when she has any major problem she consults me) and also receives new assignments along with the present duties.” 7. The contents of the letter were subsequently published in different media. 8. On 3 December 2009 the Constitutional Court asked the applicant to submit his comments concerning the impugned letter. 9. On 31 December 2009 an interview with the applicant was published in Slobodna Bosna, the local weekly magazine, in which he said, inter alia: “I will share, when the time comes, with the readers of Slobodna Bosna whatever I have learned during my term which could seriously compromise the work of the Constitutional Court, its judges and also certain high-level politicians.” 10. Another interview with the applicant was published in the same magazine on 7 January 2010, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “I shall explain who works in the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and how, and to what extent the crime has settled within the highest judicial instance of the state. And I have evidence for everything. I am tired of keeping quiet about someone else’s criminal activities, tired of talking about how the Constitutional Court operates, which always ends up with corruption, tired of interference of the crime and politics with our work. There is no state in the world like Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have no other institution, except the one in which I work, to protect the law and justice. Unfortunately, it has failed to do so.” 11. On 8 January 2010, without the knowledge and approval of the Constitutional Court, the applicant held a press conference in Banja Luka at which he made comments concerning the impugned letter. He also discussed certain cases and remarked on the impartiality of the Constitutional Court. 12. On 29 January 2010 the Constitutional Court held an extraordinary plenary session at which it discussed its position concerning the applicant’s conduct and decided to prepare a proposal for his removal from office. 13. At the Constitutional Court’s session of 25 March 2010 the applicant confirmed that he was the author of the impugned letter. 14. On 8 May 2010 at the extraordinary plenary session the Constitutional Court held unanimously that the applicant had breached the Rule 94 (2) of its Rules by knowingly damaging the reputation of the Constitutional Court and the reputation of a judge and decided to remove him from office. By virtue of Article VI of the Constitution, that decision was final and binding. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows (the translation has been provided by the Constitutional Court): “1. Based on the Conclusion of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘the Constitutional Court’) reached at the Extraordinary plenary session held on 29 January 2010, the President of the Constitutional Court, on behalf of the Constitutional Court, submitted on 4 March 2010 a Proposal for Dismissal of the Judge of the Constitutional Court Mr Krstan Simić no. K-I-15/10 on account of a violation of Rule 94 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court. II. Procedure before the Constitutional Court 2. On 30 November 2009 the Constitutional Court received a letter from the Parents’ Forum of RS-BiH from Banja Luka, accompanied by another letter (pages 1, 2 and 4) composed by Mr Krstan Simić, judge of the Constitutional Court of BiH, addressed to the president of the Independent Social-Democrats Coalition political party (‘SNSD’) and the prime minister of the Republika Srpska, Mr. Milorad Dodik. 3. After the contents of the referenced letter were published in the media, the President of the Constitutional Court had consultations with the national judges of the Constitutional Court. It was concluded that the issue of the public appearance of Judge Krstan Simić [was] to be discussed at the separate plenary session in terms of Rule 95 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court. It was also concluded that it should be requested from Judge Krstan Simić to submit his written statement on the Parents’ Forum letter and the letter he had addressed to the president of the SNSD Political Party and the prime minister of the Republika Srpska. 4. Based on the previous conclusion, on 3 December 2009, the Constitutional Court requested Judge Krstan Simić to submit his written statement concerning the Parents’ Forum letter and the controversial letter addressed to the president of the SNSD and the prime minister of the Republika Srpska. 5. On 14 January 2010, Judge Krstan Simić submitted his written statement. 6. On 29 January 2010 the Constitutional Court held an extraordinary plenary session and preliminary deliberation about the following item of the Agenda: ‘The Information and Taking a Position on the Public Appearances of Mr Krstan Simić, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina’. The Constitutional Court concluded that before it resumed its extraordinary plenary session, all relevant evidence, materials and documentation should be obtained and, based on that, a proposal for the conceivable dismissal of Judge Krstan Simić drafted, to enable the Constitutional Court to deliberate and decide whether there are any reasons for his dismissal. In addition, the Constitutional Court concluded that the Proposal for Dismissal, together with the copies of all the evidence, materials and documentation should be communicated to Judge Krstan Simić to respond to, with an invitation to do so within 14 days at the latest. 7. On 4 February 2010 pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules ... the Constitutional Court requested from the prime minister of the Republika Srpska to submit a copy of the third page of the aforementioned letter. The prime minister of the Republika Srpska failed to respond to the request ... 8. Also, on 4 February 2010, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules ..., the Constitutional Court requested from Alternative Television Banja Luka and the Radio-Television of the Republika Srpska and, on 12 February 2010, from the Public Broadcasting Service of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Public Broadcasting of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to submit the complete recording of the press-conference held by Judge Krstan Simić in Banja Luka on 8 January 2010. 9. On 4 February 2010, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules ..., the Constitutional Court requested from the weekly magazine Slobodna Bosna ..., to submit the complete recording of an interview with Judge Krstan Simić, which was the subject of articles of this magazine dated 31 December 2009 and 7 January 2010 and, in case of unavailability of this tape recording, a written statement by the journalist on the authenticity of the quoted statements of Judge Krstan Simić. 10. Within the period from 12 February through 25 March 2010, Alternative Television Banja Luka, Radio-Television of the Republika Srpska, and the Public Broadcasting Services of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted their available materials ... 11. On 16 February 2010 the Constitutional Court received a written statement by a journalist of Slobodna Bosna N. D., confirming the authenticity of the quoted statements of Judge Krstan Simić which were published in the articles of this magazine of 31 December 2009 and 7 January 2010. 12. The Proposal for Dismissal was communicated to Judge Krstan Simić on 8 March 2010. However, Judge Simić failed to submit his written statement within the given time-limit of 14 days. 13. On 25 March 2010 the Constitutional Court resumed its Extraordinary plenary session at which it deliberated about the item of the Agenda: ‘Consideration of the Proposal for Dismissal of Mr. Krstan Simić, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina’. The Constitutional Court established that the procedure for dismissal of a judge of the Constitutional Court may be defined as an ad hoc procedure of a sui generis nature, for which there are no detailed Rules on how to conduct the procedure. For that reason and by application of Rule 79 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court concluded that a fair hearing must be guaranteed to Judge Krstan Simić, including all the principles stipulated under Article II(3)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the European Convention’). Furthermore, the Constitutional Court afforded an opportunity to Judge Simić to state his position in respect of all the allegations contained in the Proposal for Dismissal before all the judges of the Constitutional Court during the proceedings at the session. The Constitutional Court then proceeded to discuss the preliminary issues, arriving at the conclusion to adjourn the session until 8 May 2010, so that the Constitutional Court could communicate, in the meantime, to Judge Krstan Simić, upon his request, the documentation he requested, render him an opportunity to access and inspect specific documents of the Constitutional Court and afford him enough time to engage a legal representative of his choice. A time-limit of 15 days was set to Judge Simić to submit his written statement in response to the Proposal for Dismissal. Also, the Constitutional Court concluded that it should resume its deliberations on 8 May 2010 even in the case that Judge Simić [failed] to appoint a legal representative, submit his written statement or attend the scheduled session. Judge Simić was notified of these conclusions orally and he agreed to them. 14. By letters no. K-I-16/10 of 26 March and 5 April 2010 respectively, the aforementioned conclusions were also communicated to Judge Simić in writing. 15. On 4 May 2010, Judge Simić submitted his written statement in which, among other things, he informed the Constitutional Court that he would not be attending the resumed extraordinary plenary session for private reasons. He also failed to appoint a legal representative or to examine the case-files of the Constitutional Court. 16. The Constitutional Court resumed its extraordinary plenary session on 8 May 2010 in the absence of Judge Simić. ... 28. In his responses of 14 January and 4 May 2010, Judge Krstan Simić states that the letter to the president of the SNSD and the prime minister of the Republika Srpska was sent to his friend, that it was a private letter and that he had not given his consent for that letter to be used. He, further, finds that all the media articles relating to him and the letters addressed to the Constitutional Court concerning him have been deliberately orchestrated with a view of his dismissal. He claims that the interview with journalist N.D. was not authorized and that he held the press-conference on 8 January 2010 because he was put under pressure. He also stated that all the statements given in public had been given within the scope of the freedom of expression. ... VII. Position of the Constitutional Court 36. During the course of its extraordinary plenary session, the Constitutional Court discussed the preliminary issues, examined all available evidence, materials and documentation .... It then conducted deliberations and reached a decision on the merits by consensus that Judge Simić had to be dismissed from the office of the Judge of the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article VI(1)(c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Rule 101 paragraph 1 line 5 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court due to the violation of Rule 94 paragraph 2 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court for the following reasons: VII.1. Contents of the letter of Judge Krstan Simić 37. In accordance with the constitutional principle of the rule of law, the Constitutional Court must be an independent and impartial constitutional authority. That, in principle, primarily defines its relation to the executive authority. The independence and impartiality of the Constitutional Court implies that its judges are free, that they do not have to be accountable to anyone and that they are not bound by anyone’s instructions (cf. the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ringeisen v. Austria, Series A, No. 13, of 16 July 1971, paragraph 95; Schiesser v. Switzerland, Series A, No. 34, of 4 December 1979, paragraph 29). Furthermore, it is not only required that the judges of the Constitutional Court are truly independent but also to appear to be so, which is subject to an objective test (cf. the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, Series A, No. 80, of 28 June 1984, paragraph 77 and ff). 38. It clearly follows from the contents of the letter that the president of the SNSD, Mr Milorad Dodik, had been in contact with Judge Krstan Simić (first page of the letter) even before the controversial letter was ever written. Judge Simić responded to those contacts by written communication. Furthermore, Judge Simić states in his letter that he is ‘always at disposal’ of the president of SNSD, offering him openly ‘his experience and opportunities’ (page 2 paragraph 7). Moreover, his letter contains an unsolicited request for a higher degree of cooperation, which clearly follows from the statement: ‘I am afraid that you do not use my experience and opportunities sufficiently enough’. In addition, Judge Simić openly discusses the possibility of employing someone from the SNSD personnel in the executive authorities of the Republika Srpska, giving his opinion and recommendations in respect of those persons and stating that those persons are in consultations with him whenever there appears any major problem (page 4, paragraph 2). According to this, Judge Simić is in the habit of giving advice to the officials of the executive authorities of one of the Entities. 39. Given the contents of the controversial letter and taking into account the fact that Judge Simić held the office of the first vice-president of the SNSD, prior to taking the office of the judge of the Constitutional Court, an objective observer gets an inevitable impression that Judge Simić did not sever relations with his former political party and its president and that he is prepared to continue maintaining such contacts which are useful to that political party. As a matter of fact, he is even initiating them. That may be clearly concluded from the statements made in the letter, offering his expertise and experience, a higher degree of cooperation, and rendering his own opinions and advice to one of the members of his former party ‘wherever he has a major problem’ in the Government of the Republika Srpska. 40. Such ties between a judge of the Constitutional Court and political parties, i.e. executive authorities of one of the Entities, may be defined as liaisons incompatible with the institutional and operative independence of the Constitutional Court, which all judges must endeavour to strengthen. In the public eye, such relations are damaging to the reputation of the Constitutional Court, in particular as concerns the perception of its independence and impartiality, i.e. the prohibition of preferential treatment of specific parties. 41. Accordingly, Judge Simić, by such statements, has deliberately endangered and inflicted damage on the independence of the Constitutional Court, thereby undermining both his reputation as a judge of the Constitutional Court and the reputation of the Constitutional Court itself, in terms of Rule 94 paragraph 2 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court. 42. The fact that the controversial letter was not of business but of private nature does not affect this conclusion of the Constitutional Court and neither does the fact that Judge Simić and the president of SNSD and the prime minister of the Republika Srpska, Mr Milorad Dodik, are friends as indicated by Judge Simić. The obligation of a judge of the Constitutional Court, as the holder of the judicial authority to safeguard the independence of the court as an institution and his own independence in relation to the holders of the other authority, is in effect in both private and professional relations. Therefore, even if the letter was of private nature, it may still endanger the independence of a judge of the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court itself as an institution. VII.2. Public appearances of Judge Krstan Simić 43. Furthermore, in the interviews given to the weekly magazine Slobodna Bosna on 31 December 2009 and 7 January 2010 and at the press conference held on 8 January 2010 in Banja Luka, Judge Simić presented serious accusations against the judges of the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court itself as an institution, associating them with (a) crime (b) corruption (c) interference of politics with the work of the Constitutional Court and (d) failure to perform the constitutional function it has been entrusted with. Moreover, Judge Simić claimed he had evidence to substantiate his allegations. 44. Judge Simić did not deny the quoted allegations, pursuant to the applicable Defamation Act, or in any other manner. On the other hand, on 16 February 2010, the Constitutional Court received a written statement by the journalist of the weekly magazine Slobodna Bosna, N. D., confirming the authenticity of the quoted statements of Judge Simić. The Constitutional Court, therefore, considers the statements given in public by Judge Krstan Simić to be accurately quoted. 45. Judge Simić invoked freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article II (3) (h) of the Constitution of BiH and Article 10 of the European Convention. In his opinion the freedom of expression allows him to express his opinion publicly and in the manner as he has done. Finally, he stated that pressure was applied on him as a judge, on account of which he found it necessary and justified to state his opinion in public. 46. The Constitutional Court emphasizes that freedom of expression is extremely important for democracy and democratic processes in a society. The state must pay special attention to this particular freedom ...This Article not only protects the information and ideas perceived as positive or considered hazardless or those on which no position has been taken, but also those that offend, shock and disturb. That is what tolerance and pluralism require and without that there is no democratic society (cf. AP 1819/07 of 11 November 2009, the judgment of the European Court of Human rights, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Series A, No 24, of 7 December 1976, paragraph 49). This is particularly the case when it concerns the public personalities or institutions of authority since the threshold of tolerance must be raised to a higher level (cf. judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Castells v. Spain, Series A, No 236, of 23 April 1992, paragraph 46). 47. Nevertheless, the freedom of expression under Article II (3) (h) of the Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention is not absolute ... according to Article 10 paragraph 2 of the European Convention, freedom of expression ‘may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests [...] or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’. 48. The Constitutional Court finds that the sanction of dismissal of a judge from office of the Judge of the Constitutional Court, under Article VI (1) (c) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in conjunction with Rule 101 paragraph 1 line 5 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, i.e. on account of a severe violation of Rule 94 paragraph 2 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, may be a justified measure for non-compliance with the restrictions of the freedom of expression. 49. Therefore, as previously stated, every judge of the Constitutional Court must be aware that by accepting his/her judicial office he/she also accepts certain restrictions in terms of public appearances. The goal of such restrictions is to protect public interest – the confidence of the public in respect of the judiciary, protection of its independence and impartiality, the integrity, reputation and honour of judges. When a judge appears in public, his/her main concern must be the protection of that public interest. 50. Judge Krstan Simić appeared in public on his own initiative, through written media and by organising the press conference. Judge Simić was aware that organising a press conference in such a manner was unprecedented as far as the Constitutional Court is concerned, as he himself stated prior to the press conference. He pointed out that his appearance was contrary to the position of the Constitutional Court concerning public relations. The Constitutional Court, further, holds that the purpose of those public appearances was to seriously discredit and raise charges against the other judges of the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court as an institution and their disqualification. Finally, Judge Simić publicly presented his claim that the Constitutional Court did not protect the law and justice, i.e. that it did not perform its duties in a proper and professional manner. Judge Simić publicly promised that these grave charges against the Constitutional Court and its judges would be substantiated by evidence, stating: ‘I have all the evidence’. 51. The Constitutional Court holds these appearances to be completely contrary to the high judicial standards of behaviour of judges. Indeed, even if those statements of Judge Simić were founded, his conduct was completely unprofessional and inconsistent with the principles of a fair hearing. Namely, a judge, even if he or she claims to be in a possession of evidence for the alleged criminal activity of the individual judges, must not act outside the institution, present his of her position in public and prejudge a conceivable outcome ... (presumption of innocence) but must use relevant state system, provided for by the positive regulations of Bosnia and Herzegovina which makes possible the examination of such claims in accordance with its jurisdiction, relevant procedure and substantive legal grounds. Judge Simić, prior to presenting his positions and claims in public, did not even attempt to tackle these issues within the Constitutional Court, although prior to his public appearances he knew that the Constitutional Court, sitting in a plenary session, would give him the opportunity to discuss the issue of his position in the Constitutional Court, where he could have presented his allegations and positions. Moreover, according to what the Constitutional Court learned about this matter, Judge Simić did not even attempt to submit any evidence to the competent prosecutor’s offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 52. Due to aforesaid, the public appearances of Judge Simić have brought into question the confidence of the public in respect of the constitutional-judicial authority as well as the Constitutional Court as an institution ... Judge Simić thereby inflicting damage to the dignity of the Constitutional Court and its judges. This is best illustrated by the introductory notes of the journalist of Slobodna Bosna in the article dated 31 December 2009 ‘The highest judicial institution of the state, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is dangerously shaken up these days under the burden of insinuations, corruption charges, political set-ups and party conflicts!’. 53. According to the established facts, it is not possible to find any reasons which could justify Judge Simić in his actions. The Constitutional Court does not find his claim of having been under pressure to be well-founded. 54. On the basis of the established facts, the Constitutional Court concludes that Judge Simić had consciously overstepped the allowed restriction on freedom of expression of a judge, thereby undermining the reputation and dignity of a judge of the Constitutional Court in contravention with Rule 94 paragraph 2 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court. In that manner, Judge Simić inflicted damage to his own reputation and dignity as a judge as well the reputation of the other judges and the Constitutional Court as an institution. ... VII.3. Conclusion 56. The Constitutional Court emphasizes first and foremost that it operates in highly complex legal and political circumstances. At this stage of the constitutional development of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the role of the Constitutional Court is very important and difficult while, objectively, its decisions have a significant impact on political processes within the state. The Constitutional Court resolves, amongst other things, complicated constitutional issues with far-reaching implications, often involving legislative or executive authorities at the state- or entity-level as direct participants. This very fact shows that there exists an undeniable public interest for the Constitutional Court to build and maintain its reputation, independence and impartiality and not to allow these principles to be endangered or violated. Otherwise, the authority of the Constitutional Court as an institution and the authority of its decisions shall be lost. The Judges of the Constitutional Court, as the distinguished jurists of the highest moral standing, must be aware of these principles at any given moment. 57. ... With his actions, Judge Simić inflicted great damage on the Constitutional Court, reflected in undermining of the confidence of the public and the authorities in respect of the independence, impartially and professional work of the Constitutional Court as well as degrading of the achieved results. 58. The Constitutional Court holds that it will have to bear the consequences of the aforementioned actions of Judge Krstan Simić for a long time and that it will have to make an extra effort to regain the undermined confidence of the public and public authorities in its autonomy, independence, impartiality and professionalism. 59. ... The Constitutional Court holds that the conditions have met to take the decision on dismissal of Judge Krstan Simić from his office, in pursuance of Article VI(1)(c) of the Constitution of BiH. ... 61. Pursuant to Article VI ... of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this decision of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to any review before any legislative, judicial or administrative authority.” 15. The decision was not served on the applicant but was published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 6 July 2010. 16. On 28 June 2010 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the State Court”) seeking to annul the Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 May 2010. 17. On 9 December 2010 the State Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the case as the Constitutional Court had exclusive jurisdiction in all matters concerning the status of its judges. 18. On 24 January 2011 the Appeals Chamber of the State Court upheld the decision of 9 December 2010. 19. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina) entered into force on 14 December 1995. The Constitutional Court was set up pursuant to Article VI of the Constitution, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall have nine members. a) Four members shall be selected by the House of Representatives of the Federation, and two members by the Assembly of the Republika Srpska. The remaining three members shall be selected by the President of the European Court of Human Rights after consultation with the Presidency. b) Judges shall be distinguished jurists of high moral standing. Any eligible voter so qualified may serve as a judge of the Constitutional Court. The judges selected by the President of the European Court of Human Rights shall not be citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina or of any neighbouring state. c) The term of judges initially appointed shall be five years, unless they resign or are removed for cause by consensus of the other judges. Judges initially appointed shall not be eligible for reappointment. Judges subsequently appointed shall serve until age 70, unless they resign or are removed for cause by consensus of the other judges. ... The Constitutional Court shall uphold this Constitution. a) The Constitutional Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide 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, including but not limited to: - Whether an Entity’s decision to establish a special parallel relationship with a neighbouring state is consistent with this Constitution, including provisions concerning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. - Whether any provision of an Entity’s constitution or law is consistent with this Constitution. ... b) The Constitutional Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over issues under this Constitution arising out of a judgment of any other court in Bosnia and Herzegovina. c). The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction over issues referred by any court in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning whether a law, on whose validity its decision depends, is compatible with this Constitution, with the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols, or with the laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina; or concerning the existence of or the scope of a general Rule of public international law pertinent to the court’s decision. ... Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding.” 20. The relevant provisions of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 60/05, 76/05, 64/08, 51/09, 22/14 and 57/14) read as follows (the translation has been provided by the Constitutional Court): Rule 38 (Attendance of the sessions) “The sessions of the Constitutional Court shall be attended by the judges, the Secretary General, the Registrar, the Heads of Departments and the person responsible for public relations. The President of the Constitutional Court may decide for other qualified persons to attend the session.” Rule 46 (Public hearing) “When necessary to directly deliberate on an issue relevant for taking a decision during the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the plenary Court shall hold a public hearing. The Constitutional Court shall take a decision on the need to hold a public hearing, on a proposal of a Judge Rapporteur or another judge”. “The judges of the Constitutional Court shall be selected in accordance with Article VI(1) of the Constitution. The judges shall be distinguished lawyers of high moral standing...” Rule 82 (former Rule 85) (Solemn declaration) “Before taking up office each elected judge shall, at the first sitting of the plenary Court at which the judge is present, or in case of need before the President of the Constitutional Court, take the following oath or make the following solemn declaration: I solemnly declare that in exercising my functions as a judge of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I will uphold the Constitution and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that I will exercise my functions as a judge conscientiously and impartially.” “The judges shall perform the function of a judge conscientiously. The judges shall uphold the reputation and dignity of the Constitutional Court and the reputation and dignity of a judge.” “The position of a judge shall be incompatible with: a) a membership in a political party or a political organization in Bosnia and Herzegovina ...” “(1) A judge may be dismissed from office before the end of his or her term in the following cases: ... e) if he or she fails to perform the function of a judge in accordance with Rule 91 of these Rules. (2) The Constitutional Court shall establish the existence of reasons referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and it shall dismiss the judge from office on the basis of a consensus of other judges and inform the body which elected that judge.”