Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 45kWORD 9k
18 December 2019
E-004474/2019
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Milan Brglez, Julie Ward, Klemen Grošelj, Dietmar Köster, Bettina Vollath
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Implementation of the ECtHR judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

22 December 2019 marks 10 years since the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

Efforts made by the EU and the Council of Europe to bring about the implementation of this judgment are an excellent example of interinstitutional cooperation, where a mechanism of parallel conditionality has been deployed in an effort to push for democratisation reforms in the BiH pre-accession and accession processes. During the 2012 – 2014 period there was considerable engagement by the Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy at the time, Štefan Füle – in particular when he invited BiH political leaders to join the High Level Dialogue on EU Accession Process. Soon after the 2014 European elections, the foreign ministers of the UK and Germany proposed a new approach to promoting reforms in BiH in order to make headway in the accession process. However, so far, no substantial progress has been made in the implementation of the judgment.

The judgment is an invaluable blueprint for enforcing the democratisation process in BiH. However, the judgment explicitly mentions that such a blueprint could significantly affect the structure of the state as defined by the Dayton Constitution, which is a guarantor for peace.

Does the Commission plan to tackle the implementation issue in the current mandate?

Original language of question: SL
Last updated: 14 January 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy