Friday, February 26, 2021

Banja Luka: Judge Milan Blagojevic Refuses to Implement BiH Law on Temporary Prohibition of Disposal of State Property – Imposed by High Representative


Banja Luka – Milan Blagojevic, a judge at the Banja Luka District Court, refused to apply the Law on Temporary Prohibition of Disposal of State Property of Bosnia and Herzegovina, imposed by the High Representative in BiH, the first such case in the domestic judiciary.

In the reasoning of the verdict, Judge Blagojevic states, inter alia, that the powers of the High Representative are determined by Annex 10 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, with none of the provisions of Annex 10 or any other provision of the agreement giving the High Representative the right to take over legislative power in Bosnia and Herzegovina

In the reasoning of the verdict passed on February 11, which is in the possession of “Nezavisne”, Judge Blagojevic states, among other things, that the powers of the High Representative are determined by Annex 10 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, with none of the provisions of Annex 10 or any other Dayton peace agreement does not give the High Representative the right to take over the legislative power in Bosnia and Herzegovina, ie. to impose any law or other legal regulation.

“Such a right has not been granted to the High Representative by the United Nations Security Council, as there is no resolution of that body in that direction. Nor has Security Council Resolution 1031 of 15 December 1995 given the High Representative the right to impose any law or another legal act “, wrote, among other things, Blagojević in the explanation of the verdict.

The verdict further states that the so-called The Peace Implementation Conference has no right to authorize the High Representative to impose laws or other legal acts in BiH, so neither under domestic nor international law does the High Representative have the right to refer to any conclusions of that conference, not even to the Bonn Conference. In 1997, nor to the conclusions and declarations of the governing board of that conference, because such a right for that conference is not prescribed by any legal source of domestic and international law.

“Moreover, the existence of that conference is not prescribed by the Dayton Peace Agreement, nor by another international agreement, nor by any act of the Security Council or other United Nations bodies,” the reasoning of the verdict reads.

Regarding the reasons for refusing to apply the law imposed by the High Representative in BiH, the judgment also cites the provision of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republika Srpska, which gives the regular court the right to refuse to apply any regulation or general act. .

The verdict further states that the so-called The Peace Implementation Conference has no right to authorize the High Representative to impose laws or other legal acts in BiH, so that neither under domestic nor international law does the High Representative have the right to invoke any conclusions of that conference.

Namely, when it comes to the dispute itself, it is about the fact that the city of Banja Luka filed a lawsuit before the District Court in Banja Luka against the Republic Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs (RUGIPP), which refused to register the right of ownership with 1/1 on the land on which, among other things, the building of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska is located. Bosnia and Herzegovina also appeared as an interested party in that dispute through the BiH Attorney’s Office, which in response to the lawsuit referred to the Law on Temporary Prohibition of Disposal of State Property of BiH imposed by the High Representative in BiH, demanding that the claim of Banja Luka be rejected as unfounded. In the end, the lawsuit of Banja Luka was rejected, but not on the basis of that imposed law, but on the basis of the Agreement on the issue of succession which was ratified by the Presidency of BiH, and for which the representatives of Republika Srpska in BiH institutions gave their consent. This agreement, among other things, stipulates that the immovable state property of the former SFRY located on the territory of the former SFRY will belong to the successor states on whose territory the property is located.

(nezavisne.com)



#Banja #Luka #Judge #Milan #Blagojevic #Refuses #Implement #BiH #Law #Temporary #Prohibition #Disposal #State #Property #Imposed #High #Representative

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Hot Topics

The European Agency and the WHO also gave a recommendation for the elderly – the Society

The first quantities of Astrazeneka's vaccine, 150,000 doses, arrived in Serbia over the weekend, and Marija Gnjatović from the Institute for the Application...

The “SEHA” Radiology Conference explores the latest innovations and technological developments – UAE – News and Reports

The Abu Dhabi Health Services Company, "SEHA", organized the 10th session of the "SEHA" International Conference on Radiology recently, which comes in line...

Suspect confesses to killing critical Maltese journalist in 2017 | NOW

A suspect in the killing of Maltese anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana...

Related Articles

The European Agency and the WHO also gave a recommendation for the elderly – the Society

The first quantities of Astrazeneka's vaccine, 150,000 doses, arrived in Serbia over the weekend, and Marija Gnjatović from the Institute for the Application...

The “SEHA” Radiology Conference explores the latest innovations and technological developments – UAE – News and Reports

The Abu Dhabi Health Services Company, "SEHA", organized the 10th session of the "SEHA" International Conference on Radiology recently, which comes in line...

Suspect confesses to killing critical Maltese journalist in 2017 | NOW

A suspect in the killing of Maltese anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana...