FAJKOVIĆ I DRUGI PROTIV BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE: IZBJEGAVANJE RJEŠAVANJA PRAVNOG PITANJA O TROŠKOVIMA PREVOZA ADVOKATA

Abstract

Deciding on the costs of litigation in practice causes different opinions, although it is an institute of litigation that has been standardized in almost identical ways for several decades. In court practice, there are different opinions in which cases a party is entitled to reimbursement of the costs of transporting a lawyer. In several decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are different opinions on the costs of transporting lawyers. The subject of the paper is the analysis of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which analysisis ba- sed on the previous practice of this Court in seeking an answer as to whether the decision is correct. The analysis refers to violations of the right to a fair trial and the right to property. The correct interpretation of this decision is important because the Court did not give its opinion on this disputed legal issue. The decision must not be interpreted as meaning that the party is not entitled to the costs of transporting the lawyer’s attorney. It can be said that this Court avoided giving an opinion, although it should have given its opinion and prevented further different case law. In the end, it is concluded that the award of transportation costs for a lawyer can not be given an opinion that would apply in each case, but it can be concluded that a party is entitled to reimbursement of transportation costs for a lawyer, except whent here are reasons for the party to influence that the secosts are not incurred and that it doesnot affect the course of litigation.