Begić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 5067/23, ECtHR (Fourth Section), 3 February 2026

The exclusion of “Others” from parliamentary leadership positions in Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutes ethnic discrimination contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR.

Art. 1, Prot. 12 ECHR

1. The applicant, a member of the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a member of the Democratic Front party, was classified as ‘Other’, having declared no affiliation to any of the ‘constituent peoples’ (Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs). However, under Article IV § 3 (b) of the Constitution, the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speakers of the House of Representatives were reserved exclusively for members belonging to those ethnic groups. In 2022, the applicant was formally nominated for the office of Speaker/Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, but his candidacy was not even put to a vote, as it was incompatible with the constitutional and regulatory provisions in force, which fundamentally excluded individuals not belonging to the “constituent peoples”. He therefore brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights, alleging discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, in violation, inter alia, of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR.

2. The European Court of Human Rights held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was applicable, noting that the right to participate in public life and to hold parliamentary office constitutes a “right provided for by law”, the enjoyment of which must be guaranteed without discrimination. On the merits, the Court found that the constitutional provision introduced a difference in treatment between individuals in similar situations, automatically excluding the applicant from the possibility of standing for the aforementioned offices solely on the ground that he did not belong to the “constituent peoples”. Referring to its established case law (in particular the precedents Sejdić and Finci, Zornić, Pilav), the Court reiterated that differences in treatment based on ethnic origin must be subject to particularly rigorous scrutiny and, as a rule, cannot be justified in a democratic society. Whilst acknowledging the historical and constitutional context arising from the Dayton Agreements and the need for balance between ethnic groups, the Court held that these factors were not sufficient to justify the total exclusion of persons belonging to the “Others” category from access to the posts in question. Consequently, the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, considering the remaining complaints to be absorbed.