The Constitutional court to Bosnia It canceled today (29/05/2025) many of the secessionist laws of the Serbian Republic, the adoption of which last February caused one of the most serious political crises in the country since the end of the war in 1995.
The Serbian Entity Parliament (RS) adopted the laws, reacting to the conviction, by a Sarajevo court, the political leader of the Serbs in Bosnia, Milorad Dodik because he did not respect the decisions of the High Commissioner, whose responsibility is his responsibility.
Dodk was sentenced to one year in prison on February 26 and a ban on a public office for six years. He then urged the RS parliament to approve a series of laws, which banned, inter alia, to the Police and the Federal State’s justice to have a say in the Serbian entity, that is, in the half country.
After the end of the war (1992-95) Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two autonomous entities, the RS and the Croatommanic Federation associated with each other through the central government.
Over the years, the responsibilities of the central government have been reinforced, at the expense of the entities and often following pressure from the West. Thus, the central police and the central judicial system were organized.
The Constitutional Court explained in its announcement that the laws of RS “canceled (…) the sovereignty of the Bosnia-Herzegovina state in a part of its territory”. In addition, the assumption of the entities of the central state “is not contrary to the Constitution” but this procedure can only be done by the federal parliament.
Milorad Dodik, who as President of the Serbian Republic has ratified controversial laws, has been wanted by the judicial authorities who want to interrogate him in the context of a “attack on the constitutional order”.
The court also annulled the RS law on the “special register” of non -governmental organizations, which imposed an increased surveillance of the funding of NGOs receiving resources from abroad, which it characterized as “foreign agents”.
In his ruling, he states that he was based on a corresponding ruling by the European Court of Human Rights which analyzed a “almost identical” law of Russia and judged him contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms.