The entire case has been referred to the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo, and Izetbegović has been ordered to pay all court costs.
According to her lawyer Esad Oruč, this decision has sent them back to square one, without any ruling on the merits of the dispute and without judicial protection.
"What we have today goes beyond the bounds of legal absurdity. Before initiating this proceeding, the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo explicitly declared itself incompetent in the administrative dispute and clearly instructed the plaintiff to seek protection of her rights before the Municipal Court in Sarajevo. We duly submitted that decision to the Municipal Court already at the hearing on April 7, 2023, during which the court simultaneously decided on the request for a protective measure and was then indisputably considered competent to proceed in this legal matter," he explained.
However, he adds, the Municipal Court in Sarajevo ignores both the law and its own previous actions, declares itself incompetent, and returns the case precisely to the court that has already stated it is not competent.
"This puts the plaintiff in a situation of a legal loop with no way out; two courts are referring her to each other, and neither is taking responsibility to decide. It is particularly important to emphasize that the Law on Higher Education explicitly stipulates that disputes against decisions of the University Senate are conducted exclusively before the Municipal Court in Sarajevo. Despite this, that very court is now refusing to decide, thereby directly deviating from a clear legal provision," he stated.
He says it is additionally concerning that the court in its reasoning refers to the Statute of the University of Sarajevo, which was adopted on July 26, 2023, noting that this is almost four months after the contested annulment decision was issued.
"This retroactively applies a regulation that did not even exist at the relevant time, which is legally unacceptable. We reviewed the content of today's decision through the court's electronic system, although it has not yet been formally delivered to the attorneys. It is particularly disheartening that in such a situation, where courts are declaring each other incompetent and there is no court willing to decide on the merits, the court believes the plaintiff should also bear the costs of a proceeding for which it is factually unknown who is competent to conduct and conclude it," he said.
He believes there must be a court to decide the dispute in any orderly legal system.
"Here, unfortunately, we have a situation where that is omitted, and the citizen is left without judicial protection. We will not accept such a situation. We will use all legal means, including higher court instances, because the right to access to court is a fundamental right that cannot be questioned. Such decisions must not become practice because that would mean the legal protection of citizens depends on whether some court declares itself competent or not," concluded Oruč.