Circle 99: Compromise only on 'how to dispose of' state property, not on 'whose' state property it is

(Patria) - The statement of the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OHR) largely reaffirms key legal principles that have long been the subject of political disputes, it was stated today from the Association of Independent Intellectuals Circle 99.

It is particularly important, they state in the press release, that it refers to clear positions of the Constitutional Court of BiH: that the state is the holder of ownership rights over state property, and that the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate this issue.

This, Circle 99 notes, further confirms that this is a constitutional-legal issue, not a political bargain.

"It is also positive that the OHR reminds that the prohibition of disposing of state property is not an end in itself, but a mechanism for protecting the interests of the state, with the possibility of exceptions through the institutional framework when there is a public interest.

Such an approach opens up space for the realization of important projects, but without derogating from the constitutional order.

However, the part of the statement that insists on 'political will and readiness for compromise' leaves room for misinterpretations and the use of blockade mechanisms based on political blackmail.

This is not a political issue where all parties are equally legitimate, but an obligation to respect the BiH Constitution and court decisions," the statement reads.

In this context, Circle 99 believes, compromise would mean relativizing already established legal facts, which is neither principled nor acceptable.

"It would be more appropriate to talk about political will to implement decisions and establish a legal framework, rather than about compromise on the principle of state ownership itself.

Compromise can exist regarding the technical modalities of property use, but not regarding its holder. In other words, the subject of compromise can be 'how to dispose of' it, but not 'whose' state property it is," Circle 99 concludes in its statement.