Bosnia’s Constitutional Court annuls controversial RS laws, cites threat to democracy and rule of law

Key Laws Declared Unconstitutional

The court invalidated the Law on the Non-Application of State Laws and Ban on the Operation of “Unconstitutional” Institutions, the Amendment to the RS Criminal Code, and the RS Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (VSTV). These acts, the Court ruled, were unconstitutional ab initio—null from the moment they were adopted or published.

In its ruling, the Court emphasised that RS cannot unilaterally override state competencies transferred under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. “The withdrawal of transferred powers can only be done by the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH,” the Court stated, affirming that unilateral action by an entity is impermissible.

RS "Foreign agents" law echoed Russian precedents

The Court also struck down provisions introducing legal definitions for “non-profit organisations” and “foreign agents.” These provisions were deemed a violation of the right to freedom of association, echoing criticisms previously levelled at similar Russian legislation.

Citing case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—specifically rulings against Russia’s Foreign Agents Law—the Court concluded that such measures breach Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of association.

According to the court, the RS law:

• Excludes NGOs from engaging in public policy or political discourse,
• Arbitrarily defines “political activity” to enable selective enforcement,
• Stigmatises foreign-funded organisations as “agents of foreign influence,”
• Introduces intrusive monitoring mechanisms without legal safeguards,
• Imposes excessive sanctions, including bans and criminal penalties, that undermine democracy.

Violation of international standards

The ruling references multiple international documents, including:

• Council of Europe guidelines on NGO status,
• UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, and
• Recommendations of the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR.

These documents affirm that civil society groups have a right to receive international funding and participate in public life without state repression or stigmatization.

Court finds no “Urgent social need”

The Court concluded that there is no urgent public need for such restrictive laws, which it characterised as disproportionate and incompatible with democratic norms. It added that the measures contradict basic principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

RS Criminal code amendment rejected

The RS Criminal Code amendment, which introduced a new offense for “non-compliance with RS institutions’ decisions,” was also declared unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision lacks clarity, undermines legal certainty, and mandates obedience to potentially unlawful decisions, in violation of the rule of law.

RS HJCP Law nullified

In a separate ruling (U-8/25), the Court annulled the RS Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council and its accompanying Rulebook. The Court found that RS has no constitutional basis to establish a separate judicial oversight body, as judicial authority is regulated by state-level law following a transfer of competencies.

By establishing parallel institutions, the RS authorities were found to be attempting to bypass the BiH Constitution and create an alternative legal system within the entity—something the Court decisively rejected.