Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights Declares as Inadmissible the Complaint brought by the Democratic Front Political Party against the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Co-head of G37 Chambers, Toby Cadman, assisted by Dr. Gus Waschefort of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, and led by Kirstie Brimelow KC, current Chair of the Bar Council and member of Doughty Street Chambers, acted for the third-party intervenor, the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the matter of Democratic Front v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

On 27 January 2026, the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights, declared the application inadmissible thereby dismissing the complaint.

To read the full decision click here

The complaint, brought by the Democratic Front, a political party founded in April 2013 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, challenged the timing and substance of electoral amendments imposed by the High Representative immediately following the general elections held on 2 October 2022. These amendments, which increased the number of indirectly elected delegates in the House of Peoples of the Federation’s Parliament and aimed to streamline the protection of vital national interests and the functioning of Federation institutions, were enacted before election results were announced. The party, led by Mr Željko Komšić, current Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, invoked Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, Article 14, and Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging violations. Following the legislative changes and subsequent implementing regulations, the new House of Peoples was formed in December 2022, with the applicant party securing seven out of eighty seats under the revised rules.

The applicant raised several complaints, chiefly contesting the timing of the High Representative’s amendments to the electoral rules, arguing that their late introduction—after the close of polls—prevented them from adapting their candidate lists accordingly. Additionally, they alleged that these amendments were discriminatory, particularly towards residents of larger cantons, criticised the use of the Sainte-Laguë/Webster method for seat allocation as racist due to varying quotients for different groups, and objected to the reliance on the latest population census for seat allocation when other positions still used pre-war census data, claiming this amounted to unequal treatment. Finally, they maintained that the amendments failed to rectify the exclusion of individuals classified as “Others” from eligibility to stand for President or Vice-President of the Federation.

The Court examined the applicant’s main complaint regarding the timing of the challenged amendments and their impact on the election of 2 October 2022. It determined that, irrespective of the Government’s other objections, the complaint was inadmissible due to procedural grounds. Specifically, the Court noted that the four-month time limit for lodging an application had expired, as the relevant period began when the applicant party was directly affected by or became aware of the amendments, which was on or before 8 October 2022. The application, however, was not posted until 10 February 2023, exceeding the permissible period. The Court further held that if the applicant party had available remedies and failed to use them, the complaint was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Regarding the remaining complaints, the Court reaffirmed that only those directly affected by a disputed measure may claim to be victims under the Convention. The applicant party’s general allegations about the discriminatory effects of the electoral amendments on various groups were insufficient, as it did not demonstrate a direct personal impact. The Court reiterated that the Convention does not allow for actio popularis—complaints brought solely out of concern for the law’s general application without direct effect on the applicant. Consequently, this part of the application was found to be incompatible ratione personae and was also rejected under Article 35 of the Convention.