Skip to content

AP 1188/06 Melkić

20070504

AP 1426/05 Mezilović et al.

20061109

AP 1718/05 Džindo

20061221

AP 662/04 Halilagić

20051220

CH/96/1 M

19970711

CH/96/21 M

19980406

CH/96/30 M

19970905

CH/96/30 M. Damjanović

19970905

CH/97/59-A&M

19980612

CH/99/3103 Toroman

20060703

The Human Rights Chamber, by referring to the case-law of the European Court,2986 rejected as inadmissible allegations of the parties to the proceedings in respect of the admissibility and merits if they are submitted in an untimely fashion, since such allegations are contrary to the principle of adversarial proceedings. However, it is assumed in that case that there were no obstacles to submit the allegations in a timely fashion.2987 Therefore, if the circumstances and facts based on which the objections to admissibility may be raised arise only after the expiry of the time limit, such objections are not subject to the preclusive time limit.2988

For a long time, the Constitutional Court remained silent and did not take a position on the possible preclusive time limit in respect of subsequent allegations by parties to the proceedings (submitted outside the time limit of 60 days). It was only in Case No. AP 1426/05 that the Constitutional Court decided that, as a rule, a supplement to the appeal was to be filed within a time limit of 60 days in order to avoid the expiry of the preclusive time limit.2989 Additional allegations and evidence are admissible only if they constitute “new legal circumstances”.2990

It remained unclear what the notion of “new legal circumstances” comprised. In particular, this term could only include circumstances that were known at the time of the filing of an appeal but could not be submitted for justified reasons (nova reperta). This term could also include circumstances that occurred only after the expiry of the time limit (nova producta). Given the case-law, it is clear that the principle of a preclusive time limit in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court also includes the allegations and evidence which the appellant failed to submit before the ordinary courts through his own fault.2991 On the other hand, the case-law of the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court may be interpreted in the manner that the notion of “new legal circumstances” includes both nova reperta, and nova producta.2992


Footnotes

  1. De Wilde et al. v. Belgium, 18.6.1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 53-59; Artico v. Italy, 13.5.1980, Series A no. 1237, paragraphs 24-28.

  2. CH/96/1-M, paragraph 60; CH/96/21-M, paragraph 28 et seq.; CH/96/30-M, paragraph 22.

  3. CH/97/59-A&M, paragraph 47.

  4. Paragraph 26 et seq.

  5. AP 662/04, paragraph 55, AP 1718/05, paragraph 13.

  6. AP 1188/06, paragraph 16.

  7. CH/99/3103, paragraph 23 et seq.

Share this page

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.