Here’s a breakdown of the Begić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (No. 2) decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Bosnia and Herzegovina violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the Convention by preventing Zlatan Begić, who does not identify with any of the constitutionally defined “constituent peoples” (Bosniacs, Croats, and Serbs), from running for President/Vice-President of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court found that this restriction, based solely on ethnicity, lacked objective and reasonable justification and was therefore discriminatory. The decision underscores the importance of equal political rights for all citizens, regardless of ethnic affiliation. The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros in respect of costs and expenses.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly outlines the applicant’s complaint regarding ineligibility to stand for election.
* **Facts:** Details the applicant’s background, the legal proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Constitutional Court’s decision finding a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Explains the constitutional provisions and election laws of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina related to the election of the President and Vice-Presidents.
* **The Law:**
* **Preliminary Issue:** Addresses and dismisses the government’s objection to the authority of the acting Agents representing them before the Court.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14:** Declares this complaint incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, as the President/Vice-President of the Federation is not considered a “legislature.”
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12:**
* **Admissibility:** Examines and dismisses the government’s objections regarding the applicant’s standing, victim status, abuse of the right of application, and the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
* **Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12:** Affirms that the article is applicable as the complaint concerns a “right set forth by law.”
* **Merits:** Finds a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, as the applicant’s ineligibility constitutes discrimination based on ethnic origin without objective justification.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 17:** Rejects this complaint as manifestly ill-founded.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, awarding the applicant EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Finding of Discrimination:** The core of the decision is the finding that excluding individuals who do not identify with a “constituent people” from running for President/Vice-President is discriminatory and violates Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
* **Victim Status:** The Court clarifies that even after a Constitutional Court ruling in the applicant’s favor, the applicant can still claim to be a victim as the discriminatory law remains in effect.
* **Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12:** The decision confirms that Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 applies to cases of discrimination in the enjoyment of political rights, specifically the right to stand for election.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court considered that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
* **Costs and expenses:** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it reinforces the principle of non-discrimination in electoral processes and highlights the importance of ensuring equal political rights for all citizens, regardless of their ethnic or national origin. This is particularly relevant in the context of Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its democracy and address issues related to minority rights and political representation.
