Federica Woelk, an official from the European Parliament, said High Representative Christian Schmidt is abusing his position and acting against the values the EU and the US promote in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This statement is just one of many reactions to Schmidt's controversial decision to appear before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Slaven Kovacevic. In response, the Association of Independent Intellectuals "Krug 99" is organizing a protest this week.

Although the President of the ECHR authorized Schmidt to address the Court as a third party, it was under the condition that he would not intervene in the facts or merits of the case. “However, the Office of the High Representative (OHR) has violated this condition multiple times,” Woelk stated.

Schmidt is abusing his position and acting against the values the EU and the US promote in Bosnia. It's high time for him to stop interfering, in this case. He has already taken a side, and instead, we need to confirm this ruling because it opposes discrimination. Bosnia needs a non-discriminatory society, Woelk emphasized.

Schmidt’s move has also garnered attention on social media, with Professor Dr. Carole Hodge from the University of Glasgow expressing her concerns. Hodge pointed out that Schmidt, in his address, cited a dissenting opinion by ECHR Judge Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, stating that the Kovacevic case should be referred back to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). However, Hodge noted, “the Constitutional Court has been paralyzed for years and is therefore incapable of handling the case.”

Political analyst Jasmin Mujanovic criticized Schmidt, arguing that he “explicitly violated his mandate” by addressing the ECHR in relation to the Kovacevic case. According to Mujanovic, Schmidt claimed in his statement that Bosnia “is not ready for majority rule.”

“Schmidt then explicitly admits that a genuinely democratic constitution in Bosnia would undermine power-sharing mechanisms, but in a thinly veiled threat, suggests that adopting such a constitution would affect the ‘fragile foundations’ of Bosnia. Schmidt is literally using the threats of violence by [Bosnian Serb leader Milorad] Dodik and [Croat leader Dragan] Covic to argue that the ECHR should continue supporting a constitutional regime that denies fundamental civil and democratic rights to all citizens of Bosnia,” Mujanovic wrote.

He added, “If there was any doubt about Schmidt’s sectarian, anti-Bosnian leanings, there is none left now.”

Journalist and columnist Dragan Bursac also weighed in on the controversy, posting on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) that Schmidt's stance leaves room for the Kovacevic ruling to be overturned upon review. Schmidt remarked, “If confirmed, the ruling could further divide political parties in Bosnia over constitutional reform, making the implementation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court even more challenging, as they require constitutional amendments.”

Bursac asked: “Does this mean that overturning the Kovacevic ruling would lead to the unification of political parties in Bosnia over constitutional reform, making it easier to implement ECHR and Constitutional Court decisions? I ask this because overturning the Kovacevic ruling would cement the ethnic principle of two entities and (possibly) a third, further solidifying Dodik’s and Covic’s roles as the sole representatives of their respective ethnic groups. How is this positive for a civic Bosnia? This is a question for all parties claiming to support a civic Bosnia.”

At the end of September, the association “Krug 99” issued an open letter to the members of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) and the democratic public of Bosnia, expressing their protest over Schmidt's actions.

The association raised several critical questions: “In what capacity is Schmidt addressing the European Court of Human Rights in the Kovacevic case? By whose authorization? Who is paying for this?”

Austrian newspaper “Der Standard” journalists posed a similar question to the OHR, asking, “Who is paying for this?” However, they received no response.

Ismet Fatih Cancar, a PhD candidate in political science and international relations at the International University of Sarajevo (IUS), argued that Schmidt is “completely delegitimizing the credibility of the OHR” and “participating in the subversion of Bosnia’s democratic capacity in favour of ethnonationalist policies preferred by Zagreb and Belgrade.” Čančar warned that “Bosnian actors need to consider what Bosnia’s future looks like with this OHR.”

Azra Zornic, whose lawsuit led to the ECHR ruling against Bosnia for discrimination, called on “all free-thinking intellectuals who have Bosnia at heart and as their first priority” to join the protest organized by Krug 99 on Thursday.