## Facts

- Bosnia and Herzegovina’s post‑war Constitution (Annex 4 to the Dayton Peace Agreement) and related election rules divided citizens into three “constituent peoples” (Bosniacs, Croats, and Serbs) and “Others” (including national minorities such as Roma and Jews).
- The Constitution reserved eligibility for two state institutions to members of the constituent peoples: (1) the tripartite state Presidency and (2) the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly.
- Dervo Sejdić, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Roma origin, and Jakob Finci, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Jewish origin, were classified as “Others.”
- Both applicants wished to stand for election to the Presidency and the House of Peoples but were barred solely because they were not Bosniac, Croat, or Serb.
- Election authorities confirmed that the applicants were ineligible due to their ethnic origins (including a written confirmation to Mr. Finci that he could not run because he was Jewish).
- The applicants sought relief in domestic proceedings. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held that it lacked competence to assess whether constitutional provisions (and legislation directly based on them) were compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
- After Bosnia and Herzegovina joined the Council of Europe and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol No. 12, the applicants filed applications with the European Court of Human Rights in 2006, alleging discriminatory exclusion from candidacy for the state’s highest elected offices.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicants’ ineligibility to stand for election to the House of Peoples violated Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
2. Whether the applicants’ ineligibility to stand for election to the state Presidency violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
3. Whether the ethnic restrictions could be justified by the post‑conflict, power‑sharing aims of the Dayton constitutional settlement.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held, by 14 votes to 3, that Bosnia and Herzegovina violated Article 14 taken together with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the applicants’ ineligibility to stand for election to the House of Peoples.
- The Grand Chamber held, by 16 votes to 1, that Bosnia and Herzegovina violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 regarding the applicants’ ineligibility to stand for election to the Presidency.
- The Court treated the House of Peoples as part of the “legislature” for purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because it is a chamber of the Parliamentary Assembly with legislative functions.
- The Court found the applicants were subjected to direct differential treatment based exclusively on ethnic origin: as “Others,” they were automatically excluded from candidacy, regardless of their individual qualifications.
- The Court accepted that the Dayton arrangements were adopted in a specific historical context and were linked to securing peace after the 1992–1995 conflict, but it held that the continued blanket exclusion of all “Others” from the Presidency and the House of Peoples was not proportionate to that aim.
- The Court concluded that Bosnia and Herzegovina was required to bring its constitutional and electoral arrangements into line with the Convention and Protocol No. 12 by removing the discriminatory ineligibility rules.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 covers the right to stand for election, and it applies to elections for bodies that form part of the state “legislature,” which may include an upper chamber with legislative powers.
- Under Article 14, a difference in treatment based on ethnic origin requires very weighty reasons to be justified, and the state must show a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.
- Automatic and categorical exclusion of entire groups from eligibility for elected office on ethnic grounds is a severe restriction and demands especially strong justification.
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 contains a general ban on discrimination in relation to “any right set forth by law” and actions by public authorities, even where no other Convention right is engaged.
- Post‑conflict power‑sharing arrangements may pursue legitimate aims, but continued ethnic exclusions from core state offices must be reassessed over time and cannot be maintained indefinitely if they amount to unjustified discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional framework unlawfully excluded Roma and Jewish citizens, classified as “Others,” from standing for election to the House of Peoples and the state Presidency, and that these blanket ethnic restrictions violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.


Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06 (2009)