Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine - od ustavobranitelјa do ustavotvorca

Autori članka: 
Siniša Karan, Siniša Aleksić
Godina izdavanja članka: 
2016
Broj u godini: 
1
Apstrak članka: 

Najvažnije pitanje funkcionisanja i opstanka država višeznačno složenih federalnog tipa (kakva jeste i BiH) je pitanje podjele nadležnosti, te u vezi sa tim, pitanje ustavnopravne efikasne kontrole tih federalnih odnosa i raspodjele nadležnosti.

Pripadnost određenom kolektivitetu djeluje kao određujuća kategorija u pogledima o političkom i ustavnopravnom uređenju Bosne i Hercegovine kao državne zajednice. Dovođenje u vezu svega i svačega sa ustavnim modelom, stvarajući sliku nepodnošlјivosti društveno-političkog stanja u njegovim okvirima, proglašavajući ga krivcem svih kriza u Bosni i Hercegovini, želi se stvoriti nesporan zahtjev za njegove promjene, odnosno njegovu zamjenu novim ustavnim modelom. Prioritetan cilј je stvaranje percepcije da je Dejtonski ustav jedno prelazno rješenje, koje je iscrpilo svoje kapacitete za dalјnji razvoj državnopravnog okvira. Suštinske promjene Ustava ipak su nastale de facto postupkom revizije Ustava bez promjene ijednog slova Ustava.
Ustavni sud BiH se našao u ulozi institucije koja će to potvrditi i provesti svojim „konačnim i obavezujućim „ odlukama, čije neprovođenje je krivično sankcionisano.
Ustavni sud je poseban državni organ čija je primarna funkcija kontrola ustavnosti i zakonitosti opštih pravnih akata po posebno utvrđenom postupku. Shodno tom načelu pored ustavnog suda BiH postoje i ustavni sudovi federalnih jedinica (entiteta).
Međutim, ulogom ustavobranitelјa do ustavotvorca, Ustavni sud BiH dao je sebi za pravo ne samo da čuva taj Ustav, nego i da ga tumačeći (po svojim Pravilima) i mijenja. Načini revizije ustavnih normi putem Ustavnog suda su se odvijale na više načina: prije svega jezičkim tumačenjem, opštim tumačenjem normi, kao i tumačenjem određenog pravno-političkog milјea iz F Bi, te uz pomoć međunarodnih faktora. Ustavno određenje mjesta i uloge ustavog Suda BiH, pogrešno i tendenciozno je protumačeno, dajući mu mogućnost da bitno mjenja ustavni položaj entiteta u odnosu na BiH. Istovremeno je sebi omogućio djelovanje koje je bilo i jeste potpuno van dometa i konrole entiteta koji čine supstancijalno biće BiH. U tom smislu je glavna institucija za zaštitu ustava BiH, svojim odlukama išla u pravcu njegove izvorne razgradnje i stvaranja ustavnosudskog okvira za neku novu državu BiH, upuštajući se u ocjene političke i diskrecione prirode odluka državnih organa, cjelishodnosti i svrsihodnosti tih odluka.
Ustavni sud ni u jednom svome segmentu, zbog prakse koju je usvojio, nije pod društvenom kontrolom ni jedne isnstitucije vlasti na bilo kom nivou. Svojim slobodnim djelovanjem postaje najjači adut u rukama svih zagovornika neke nove ustavne zbilјe suprotne od dejtonskog Ustava BiH. Suprotno kontinentalnoj pravnoj školi centralizovane sudske kontrole ustavnosti i strogoj primjeni ustava i ustavnih procedura, Ustavni sud se ponaša kao američki Vrhovni sud.
Ustavni sud BiH umjesto da, na bazi već utvrđenih pravila, vrši samo primjenu na pojedinačne slučajeve (evropsko pravo), upravo suprotno, na bazi pojedinih slučajeva određuje pravila (precedentno anglosaksonsko pravo). I upravo zato, svi ozbilјni pokušaji koji bi aktuelnom vremenu doveli u pitanje djelovanje neustavnih institucija na nivou BiH, zbog konačnog autoriteta Ustavnog suda BiH i njegove sadašnje prakse, su osuđeni unaprijed na neuspjeh.
Važeća pravila sa jedne strane i sudska praksa po kojoj djeluje Ustavni Sud BiH, sa druge strane, ekspilicite pokazuju tendenciju preoblikovanja složenog federalnog državnog uređenja, sa elementima konfederalnog tipa, prema unitarnom, kroz formu ustavnopravne zaštite.
Transfer nadležnosti sa entiteta na državu, potvrđeni na Ustavnom sudu BiH, koji je izvršen u postdejtonskom periodu uz primjenu metoda koje su u dobokom sukobu sa demokratskim principima, znatno je umanjio konfederalne elemente uređenja BiH, u korist jačanja dkapaciteta državnih institucija i federalne države.


Ključne riječi: Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine, Ustavni sud, Zakon o ustavnom sudu, nadležnost, sastav, Pravila.

Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract: The most important issue of the functioning and survival of the states of ambiguous complex federal type (such as BiH), has been the issue of division of competences, and in this regard, the issue of constitutional efficient control of these federal relationships and the distribution of competences.

Belonging to a particular collectivity acts as a defining category in the views of the political and constitutional arrangement of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state community. By bringing the connection of everything with the constitutional model, by creating an image of intolerance of socio-political situation in its own terms, by declaring it guilty of all the crises in Bosnia and Herzegovina, someone wants to create an uncontested application for its change, or replace it by a new constitutional model. The priority goal is to create the perception that the Dayton constitution is an interim solution, which has exhausted its capacities for further development of the state and legal framework. However, substantial amendments to the Constitution appeared de facto by the process of constitutional revision without changing a single letter of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court of BiH found itself in the role of an institution that would confirm and implement its “final and binding” decisions, whose non-implementation would be sanctioned.
The Constitutional Court is a special state body whose primary function is to control the constitutionality and legality of legal acts according to a specific procedure. According to this principle, in addition to the Constitutional Court of BiH, there are constitutional courts of federal units (entities).
However, by the role from the defenders of constitution to the constitution makers, the BiH Constitutional Court gave itself the right not only to preserve the Constitution, but also to change it through interpreting it (according to its Rules). The revision of constitutional norms through the Constitutional Court has been performed in several ways: first of all, through linguistic interpretation, the general interpretation of norms, as well as the interpretation of certain legal-political milieu of the BiH Federation and with the help of the international factors. The constitutional definition of the position and role of the BiH Constitutional Court has been erroneously and tendentiously interpreted, giving it the ability to significantly change the constitutional position of the entity in relation to BiH. At the same time, it allowed itself an action that was and has been completely out of range and control of the entities that make up the substantial figure of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this sense, the main institution for the protection of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina followed the path of its original decommissioning and creation of constitutional framework for a new state of Bosnia and Herzegovina by its own decisions, going into assessments of political and discretionary nature of the state bodies’ decisions and expediency of those decisions.
Due to the practices adopted, in neither of its segment, the Constitutional Court has been under social control of any institutional authorities at any level. By its free action, it becomes the main advantage in the hands of all those who advocate new constitutional realities which are the opposite of the Dayton Constitution of BiH. Contrary to the continental law school of centralized judicial control of constitutionality and strict implementation of the constitution and constitutional procedures, the Constitutional Court acts as the US Supreme Court.
On the basis of already established rules, the BiH Constitutional Court rather than it only makes application to individual cases (the European law), on the contrary, on the basis of individual cases it determines the rules (precedent Anglo Saxon law). That is why all serious attempts would question the action of unconstitutional institutions at the state level, for the final authority of the Constitutional Court of BiH and its current practices are doomed to failure in advance.
The current rules on the one hand and the court practice on which the Constitutional Court operates on the other hand, explicit show the tendency of transformation of a complex federal state structure with elements of confederal type, according to a unitary, in the form of constitutional protection.
Transfer of competencies from the entities to the state, confirmed by the BiH Constitutional Court, which was carried out in the post Dayton period with the use of methods that are deeply in conflict with democratic principles, significantly reduced the confederal items of BiH arrangement, in favor of strengthening capacities of the state institutions and federal state.
Keywords: Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Constitutional Court, the Law on the Constitutional Court, competences, composition, Rules.