Constitutional Court of FBiH ruled that the South Interconnection Law is in accordance with the Constitution of FBiH, Lidija Bradara's request is inappropriate!

(Patria) - The Constitutional Court of FBiH rejected the request of the President of FBiH, Lidija Bradara, who asked for the withdrawal of the request for assessment of the constitutionality of the Law on the gas pipeline "South Interconnection Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia" and determined that the Law on the gas pipeline "South Interconnection Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia" was passed in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

On September 3, 2025, Bradara submitted a request to the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for an assessment of the procedure by which the Law on the gas pipeline "South Interconnection Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia" was passed, claiming that it was adopted contrary to the provisions of the rules of procedure of both houses of the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Constitutional Court of FBiH requested statements from both houses of the FBiH Parliament in response to this request, and on January 14, 2026, a timely response to the request was received by the Constitutional Court of the Federation, submitted by the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with accompanying documentation, which includes the Transcript of the 15th regular session of the House of Representatives from December 12, 2024, at which the contested Law Proposal was adopted.

The response recalls that the contested Law was adopted at the 15th regular session of the House of Representatives held on December 12, 2024, "after a timely procedure prescribed by the rules of procedure", and that "all relevant working bodies of this house considered the text of the proposed law submitted by the proposer". Furthermore, the response to the request points out that "the type of procedure for adopting a law (regular, shortened, or urgent) depends primarily on the authorized proposer, who proposes the type of procedure for adopting a regulation", but that "the final decision on the proposal to adopt the law by urgent procedure, as a preliminary issue, in accordance with Article 193 of the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of FBiH, is made by the House of Representatives, by a majority vote of the representatives at the session when the law proposal itself is considered".

The House of Peoples did not provide the requested response within the given deadline.

The Constitutional Court of FBiH specifically explained why it rejected Lidija Bradara's request to withdraw the constitutionality assessment.

The submission regarding the withdrawal of the request states that the request was submitted "in circumstances where there were serious doubts regarding the constitutional compliance of certain provisions of the Law". Then, it states that after the submission of the request, "new, relevant circumstances arose that significantly changed the factual and legal context in which the subject law is being considered", and that "processes of review and improvement of the legislative framework related to this project have begun within the institutional framework of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Finally, it points out the emergence of circumstances that indicate "the imminent establishment of additional legal solutions aimed at resolving previously identified constitutional and implementation ambiguities", and the submission concludes with the assessment of the Applicant that "at this moment, there are no justified reasons for continuing the procedure for assessing the constitutionality of the subject Law".

The Constitutional Court of the Federation determined that none of the above statements correspond to the reasons for which the request was submitted.

While the request is based exclusively on procedural objections regarding the alleged violation of certain provisions of the parliamentary houses' rules of procedure, which allegedly make the contested Law formally (procedurally) unconstitutional, the submission withdrawing the request does not address these reasons, which are the only relevant ones for this constitutional court procedure.

The statement that the request was submitted "in circumstances where there were serious doubts regarding the constitutional compliance of certain provisions of the Law" is a typical objection in constitutional court proceedings, but those concerning the determination of the material (substantive) constitutionality of the contested regulation, as they then decide on the "compliance of certain provisions" or articles of the law that is contested with the constitution. Since this constitutional court procedure is not about that, but about determining potential irregularities in the legislative procedure, this statement is irrelevant.

The next statement, about "new, relevant circumstances that have significantly changed the factual and legal context in which the subject law is being considered", is also irrelevant in this constitutional court procedure, because the "factual and legal context" in which "the subject law is being considered" relates to the past, i.e., the time of adoption of the contested Law, and as such is unchangeable, which also makes this statement irrelevant.

The fact that "processes of review and improvement of the legislative framework related to this project have begun within the institutional framework of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" is also of no importance for this constitutional court procedure. The Constitutional Court of the Federation assesses that the processes mentioned are positive and that they may eventually lead to new and better substantive legal solutions in this area, but this has no effect on the constitutional court procedure in question.

The Constitutional Court of the Federation considers the objection made in support of withdrawing the request, according to the Applicant's assessment, that "at this moment there are no justified reasons for continuing the procedure for assessing the constitutionality of the subject Law", to be particularly inappropriate.

The reasons why the Applicant requested the determination of the formal constitutionality of the contested Law could only have arisen at the time of its adoption, so the claim that they "do not exist at the moment of withdrawal of the request" and that the procedure should be suspended is unsustainable.

Conversely, the Constitutional Court of the Federation believes that in a situation where a valid law is called into question due to doubts about the correctness of the procedure by which it was adopted, the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty require that this doubt be either confirmed or refuted.

Based on the foregoing, it was decided that the reasons stated in the submission for withdrawing the request in case number U-20/25 are not relevant in this constitutional court procedure, and that continuing the procedure for determining the formal constitutionality of the Law on the gas pipeline "South Interconnection Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia" is in the public interest.

This judgment was rendered by the Constitutional Court of the Federation, composed of: Court President Aleksandra Martinović, and judges Dr. Boris Barun, Vesna Budimir, Mirko Milićević, Prof. Dr. Edin Muminović, Branimir Orašanin, Ajša Softić, Mr. Sc. Alen Taletović, and Mr. Anja Vuleta Pavelka.