Judgment from the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina acquitting a woman who did not wear a mask indoors.
Also, in Bosnia, all sentences for not respecting curfew in court have been overturned. Such a decision was unconstitutional. I personally know people who were smart and brave and did not pay the € 500 fine. They went to court and were acquitted.
I think states bluff a lot in this madness, if it passes it passes. People have very little knowledge about their rights, about the Constitution, the secrecy of personal data, freedom of movement, dignity. Details.
Article translated by google translate.
Apelantica Mira Ćajić sa Sokoca u aprilu ove godine podnijela je apelaciju Ustavnom sudu BiH u kojem je ocijenila da je Republički štab svojim zaključkom prekoračio odredbe 'zakona, Ustava RS i Ustava BiH', zbog kojeg ona trpi nenadoknadivu svakodnevnu štetu. ... - USTAVNI SUD BiH USVOJIO ŽALBU...
www.slobodna-bosna.ba
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BiH ADOPTED THE APPEAL OF MIRA ĆAJIĆ FROM SOKOC: "The decision of the Republic Staff on mandatory masks indoors violated the right to 'private life'"
In April this year, appellant Mira Ćajić from Sokolac filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court of BiH, in which she assessed that the Republic Headquarters exceeded the provisions of "the law, the RS Constitution and the BiH Constitution", due to which she suffers irreparable daily damage.
The court explained that in the case of the adoption of this measure by the Republic Staff, the active participation of the highest bodies of the legislative and executive power of the Republika Srpska was lacking.
"The Constitutional Court concluded that interference with basic human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the BiH Constitution and the European Convention, which was carried out by the disputed conclusion of the Republic Emergency Situations Headquarters, as a narrow segment of the executive, on mandatory wearing of a protective mask indoors, violates the right to "private life" when in the case of the adoption and review of the ordered measure there was no active participation of the highest legislative and executive bodies of the Republika Srpska ", reads the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH made by the Grand Council at yesterday's session, reports Mondo.
In April this year, appellant Mira Ćajić from Sokolac filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court of BiH, in which she assessed that the Republic Headquarters exceeded the provisions of "the law, the RS Constitution and the BiH Constitution", due to which she suffers irreparable daily damage.
She also stated that the laws listed in the preamble of the disputed conclusion (Law on Protection and Rescue of the Population in Emergency Situations and the Law on Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases) do not have a definite term "protective mask", ie that the law does not recognize the term " protective mask ".
The court explained that in the case of the adoption of this measure by the Republic Staff, the active participation of the highest bodies of the legislative and executive power of the Republika Srpska was lacking.
"The Constitutional Court concluded that interference with basic human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the BiH Constitution and the European Convention, which was carried out by the disputed conclusion of the Republic Emergency Situations Headquarters, as a narrow segment of the executive, on mandatory wearing of a protective mask indoors, violates the right to "private life" when in the case of the adoption and review of the ordered measure there was no active participation of the highest legislative and executive bodies of the Republika Srpska ", reads the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH made by the Grand Council at yesterday's session, reports Mondo.
In April this year, appellant Mira Ćajić from Sokolac filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court of BiH, in which she assessed that the Republic Headquarters exceeded the provisions of "the law, the RS Constitution and the BiH Constitution", due to which she suffers irreparable daily damage.
She also stated that the laws listed in the preamble of the disputed conclusion (Law on Protection and Rescue of the Population in Emergency Situations and the Law on Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases) do not have a definite term "protective mask", ie that the law does not recognize the term " protective mask ".
It is also stated that the measures are contrary to the provisions of the Law on Consumer Protection of BiH and RS, which prohibit the trader from discriminating against any consumer, since the measures force citizens and blackmail them by wearing a mask, or if they do not want to be denied service .
She also assessed that such measures are "absolutely incorrect and unpredictable".
"In this regard, the appellant also refers to the practice of the Basic Court in Sokolac in which, as she alleges, a person who did not use a medical mask was acquitted of a misdemeanor responsibility and the misdemeanor order was revoked, because the act charged is not a misdemeanor," reads description of the said decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH.
In addition, Ćajić states that the RS National Assembly did not declare a state of emergency in case of an epidemic as prescribed by the RS Constitution, but that the RS Government as the executive illegally usurped the competencies of the RS National Assembly and declared a state of emergency and appointed the Republic Emergency Headquarters. .
In the continuation, the appellant argued in an extensive manner "the lack of justification and usefulness of wearing masks", and claimed that the decision-maker did not offer "evidence of the necessity and proportionality of measures" and others.
Explaining its decision, the BiH Constitutional Court points out that the system of protection of the population from infectious diseases, including kovid-19, is a challenge for the authorities in all countries and that the measures imposed in such a situation undoubtedly limit constitutional rights, and that the European Convention and The European Court of Human Rights does not a priori prohibit the introduction of such measures, on the contrary.
Furthermore, it is emphasized that in the specific case regarding the obligation to wear protective masks indoors issued by the Republic Headquarters in RS, "it was considered in relation to the issuer of orders, and not their content".
"In this particular case, the necessary role of the legislature and the highest executive was missing, since in a democratic society, such important measures, although aimed at protecting health, after a long period of pandemic danger, and when its duration is uncertain, must be under constant control of the legislature and with the participation of the highest executive body. Therefore, they should be evaluated, approved and continuously checked by them ", states the Constitutional Court of BiH.
The decision concludes that - the Constitutional Court considers that the (non) conduct of public authorities, primarily the RS National Assembly and the RS Government, in the specific circumstances of this case is contrary to ensuring compliance with guarantees covered by the right to "private life".
"Having in mind all the above, the Constitutional Court considers that in the specific case, by passing the disputed conclusion of the Republic Emergency Situations Headquarters, the right to 'private life' was violated," it was pointed out.
