Insurance law in the case law of the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Author: Azur Prnjavorac, attorney at law and mediator · Last updated: 18 September 2026 · Field of law: insurance law

This page sets out the legislative framework of insurance law in Bosnia and Herzegovina and eleven rulings of the higher courts that shape everyday practice in disputes with insurers. Each ruling is presented with the operative holding, the reasoning of the court and the exact reference of the decision, so that it can be cited in a pleading. The overview is intended for policyholders, injured parties and foreign lawyers who need to understand how a claim against an insurance company is assessed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Legislative framework

The contract of insurance is governed by the Law on Obligations (Zakon o obligacionim odnosima), Chapter XXVII, Articles 897 to 965, which applies in both entities as legislation taken over from the former common legal order. Article 901 governs the conditions of insurance and the policy, and it is on that provision, read with Article 902 paragraph 3, that the courts rely when holding that the general and special conditions of insurance form an integral part of the contract. Article 939 provides for subrogation: upon payment of the indemnity, the rights of the policyholder against the person liable for the damage pass to the insurer up to the amount paid. Article 941 confers on the injured party an independent right, that is, a direct action against the insurer up to the amount of the sum insured. As regards limitation, Article 380 lays down a period of three years for claims arising from a contract of insurance, and five years for life insurance, while Article 371 contains the general limitation period of five years in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and ten years in the Republika Srpska under Article 34 of the 1993 Law on Amendments to the Law on Obligations of the Republika Srpska. The distinction matters, because the case law below classifies the insurer's recourse claim under the general period rather than under the insurance specific period.

Supervision of the insurance market and the status of insurance undertakings are regulated separately in each entity: in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Law on Insurance (Zakon o osiguranju FBiH, Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 23/17), and in the Republika Srpska by the Law on Insurance Companies (Zakon o društvima za osiguranje RS, Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska 17/05, 1/06, 64/06, 74/10, 47/17 and 58/19). At state level the Law on the Insurance Agency in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2004) established the Insurance Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which coordinates the two entity supervisory agencies rather than supervising individual insurers itself. Older decisions cited below still refer to the Law on Property and Personal Insurance (Zakon o osiguranju imovine i lica, Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2/95), in particular Articles 73, 85 and 88, which were in force at the material time; those references are reproduced as they appear in the decisions.

Compulsory motor liability insurance is regulated by entity statutes. In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina the Law on Compulsory Insurance in Traffic (Zakon o obaveznim osiguranjima u saobraćaju FBiH, Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 57/20 and 103/21) requires the insurer, under Article 13, to make a reasoned offer of settlement within thirty days of the claim file being completed and to pay within a further fourteen days; under Article 14, where the basis or the amount of the claim is disputed, a reasoned reply is due within sixty days of the claim being submitted. The minimum sums insured are 2,000,000 KM for personal injury and 400,000 KM for damage to property per insured event. The Protection Fund of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Article 59) pays damage caused by an uninsured vehicle and, where the vehicle remains unidentified, only damage arising from personal injury (Article 66). In the Republika Srpska the Law on Compulsory Insurance in Traffic (Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska 82/15, 78/20, 1/24 and 67/26) provides in Article 22 for a reasoned offer and payment within thirty days of delivery of the documents and in any event within sixty days of the claim being submitted, while Article 24 makes an action brought before expiry of that period premature; the Protection Fund of the Republika Srpska is regulated by Article 51. Damage caused by a vehicle bearing foreign registration plates and covered by a green card falls to the Green Card Bureau in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the professional association of domestic insurance undertakings.

Rulings of the courts

Causal link in motor vehicle insurance claims and the correspondence of the damage

Ruling: In claims arising from motor vehicle insurance the causal link is not proved where the damage on the vehicles does not correspond to the circumstances of the case.

From the reasoning of the decision: for liability to arise in the case of an accident caused by a motor vehicle in motion within the meaning of Article 178 of the Law on Obligations, it was necessary to prove the causal link between the damage and the harmful act, which in this case consisted in the driving of the vehicle "I. D.". The causal link, particularly in claims arising from motor vehicle insurance, is always tied to the factual question whether the damage on the vehicles corresponds to the circumstances of the case. In the present case the courts established that the damage to the claimant's vehicle and to the vehicle "I. D.", which was said to have caused the damage in question, was not compatible in the front sections of those vehicles, and since it had not even been possible for the expert witness to inspect the condition of the damage on the vehicles, the existence of a causal link was not proved, so that the decision to dismiss the claimant's action was correct.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 65 0 Ps 184518 20 Rev of 27 October 2020

The driver's spouse is not a third party under the compulsory insurance of the vehicle in which she was travelling

Ruling: The spouse of a driver who was in the vehicle at the time of the road traffic accident is not regarded as a third party under the compulsory insurance of the vehicle in which she was travelling. Accordingly, the spouse is entitled to compensation under the compulsory insurance of the other vehicle if the driver of that vehicle is liable for the accident.

From the reasoning of the decision: bearing in mind that the claimant was the wife of the defendant's policyholder at the time when the harmful event occurred, the defendant insurer objected with good reason that the claimant lacked standing to sue, because the damage arose in an event caused by her husband, who was the defendant's policyholder under compulsory motor liability insurance. The liability of the defendant is adjudicated according to the liability of its policyholder, that is, of the driver of the vehicle insured with it, so that Article 178 of the Law on Obligations also had to be applied to the disputed relationship. The spouse of the driver of one of the motor vehicles involved in a collision has, as an injured party, a right to compensation only under the compulsory insurance of the other vehicle, and only to the extent to which the driver of that other vehicle is at fault for the accident. In the present case, however, the claimant bears the consequences of any fault of her own spouse, so that she may recover compensation under compulsory insurance only from the other vehicle in proportion to the fault of the driver of that other vehicle, that is, in the same proportion in which that right would have belonged to her spouse, the driver himself.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 32 0 P 168996 19 Rev of 18 February 2020

Subrogation of the insurer and recourse against a driver who caused the damage while intoxicated

Ruling: By paying compensation to third parties under compulsory insurance, the insurer steps into the rights of the insured person (subrogation) and may require the liable driver to reimburse the compensation paid, except where that driver proves that the damage resulted from some other cause and not from his conduct brought about by his state of intoxication.

From the reasoning of the decision: in the case of compensation for damage caused by a policyholder in a state of intoxication, the insurer steps into the rights of the injured party (subrogation) and may require the liable driver to reimburse the sum paid, except where that driver proves that the damage resulted from some other cause and not from his conduct brought about by his state of intoxication. The structure of the claim corresponds to Article 939 of the Law on Obligations: the insurer asserts the claim of the injured party against the person liable, transferred to it by operation of law up to the amount paid, and it is for the driver to establish an alternative cause if he wishes to resist recourse.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 56 0 P 041482 19 Rev of 8 January 2020

Standing of the Green Card Bureau for damage caused by a foreign registered vehicle

Ruling: Where a domestic insurer (in the case at hand the defendant "Uniqa osiguranje") held only the authority to process and settle the claim out of court in the capacity of correspondent, that cannot affect the substantive legal relationship as regards the actual standing of the defendant as a member of the Bureau in the court dispute that arose, so that the party with standing to be sued for compensation is the Green Card Bureau, as the entity bound to provide cover.

From the reasoning of the decision: in the course of the proceedings it was disputed whether the defendant ("Uniqa osiguranje" d.d. Sarajevo) was answerable for the damage in question, which had been caused by a vehicle bearing foreign registration plates and holding a policy of the foreign insurance undertaking Salzburger Landes-Versicherung. Under Article 88 of the Law on Property and Personal Insurance (Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2/95), an injured person to whom damage has been caused by the use of a vehicle with foreign registration for which a valid international document or proof of the existence of motor liability insurance under Article 85 paragraph 1 of that law exists submits the claim for compensation to the Insurance Bureau. Paragraph 2 of the same provision states that the Insurance Bureau may entrust the processing and payment of such claims to its members or to specialised organisations, which are obliged to process and settle the claim in accordance with the international agreements on motor vehicle insurance. The Crete Agreement, like the Statute of the Green Card Bureau, provided that claims for compensation in respect of damage occurring on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and caused by vehicles insured with foreign insurance undertakings are submitted to the Green Card Bureau of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is the only authorised body that compensates damage caused by vehicles insured with foreign insurance undertakings. The Green Card Bureau in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established as a professional organisation representing the insurance undertakings of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the green card system, as defined by the council of bureaux in the Crete Agreement. The Bureau provides a twofold guarantee: a guarantee in its own state that the foreign insurer will respect the law applicable in that country and will compensate injured persons within the sums prescribed in that country, and the guarantee of the bureau of the visited country for the obligation of its member covering liability for damage caused to third persons by the use of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, which in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the Green Card Bureau. Thus, as regards the processing of claims for compensation out of court, the Bureau may entrust that task to its members, but in court proceedings the Bureau alone is answerable, that is, alone has standing to be sued for compensation, and not the domestic insurer.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 17 0 P 005163 13 Rev of 27 February 2014

The insurer's recourse claim is subject to the general five year limitation period running from the date of payment

Ruling: The recourse claim of an insurance company for the amount of compensation paid to a party injured in a road traffic accident caused by the company's policyholder does not, by its legal nature, constitute a claim for damages, but a claim for reimbursement of an expense incurred for another within the meaning of Article 218 of the Law on Obligations, so that such a claim is subject to the general limitation period of five years under Article 371 of the Law on Obligations, which runs from the date on which payment was made.

The significance of this classification lies in the choice between competing limitation regimes. Characterised as a claim for damages, the recourse claim would have been governed by the short periods applicable to claims for compensation; characterised as a claim arising from the contract of insurance itself, it would have fallen under the three year period in Article 380 of the Law on Obligations. By placing it under Article 218, which concerns the reimbursement of an expense incurred in the interest of another, the court confirmed that Article 371 applies and that the period begins to run only on the day the insurer actually paid the injured party, not on the day of the accident or the day the claim was reported.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 43 0 Mal 011940 12 Rev of 10 January 2013

By signing the policy the policyholder accepts the general and special conditions of insurance

Ruling: By signing the insurance policy under Article 901 of the Law on Obligations, the claimant accepted, within the meaning of Article 902 paragraph 3 of the same law, the general and special conditions of insurance as integral parts of the contract of insurance, and in that way consented to the conditions on which the contract was concluded. Consequently, provisions excluding cover on account of improper handling cannot be regarded as provisions of the conditions that run counter to the purpose for which the contract was concluded.

The reasoning proceeds from the formal structure of the contract of insurance. Article 901 treats the policy as the document recording the contract, and Article 902 paragraph 3 attaches to the signature the effect of accepting the general and special conditions to which the policy refers, so that those conditions are not external terms imposed afterwards but constituent parts of the agreement itself. An exclusion clause is therefore examined not as an unexpected restriction but as an agreed definition of the boundaries of cover, and the court declined to treat an exclusion for improper handling of the insured object as contrary to the purpose of the contract, since the cover was never intended to indemnify loss arising from the policyholder's own mishandling.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 17 0 Ps 042318 12 Rev of 23 July 2013

A contract concluded after expiry of the grace period gives no continuity of cover and the vehicle is uninsured

Ruling: Given the fact that the policyholder (the person causing the damage) did not conclude the contract of insurance within the grace period but concluded it after the expiry of that period, the lower courts correctly concluded that the vehicle in which the claimant was injured as a passenger was uninsured at the time of the harmful event, because there is no continuity in the insurance that would also cover the time at which the harmful event occurred.

The grace period is the short interval following expiry of a policy during which a renewal is treated as continuing the previous cover without interruption. The court held that this effect is conditional: it operates only if the new contract is actually concluded within that interval. Where the renewal comes later, the new policy takes effect from its own commencement and does not reach back to cover events that occurred in the interval that has elapsed, so that for that interval the vehicle is legally uninsured. For an injured passenger the claim does not disappear but is directed to the Protection Fund of the entity concerned, which answers for damage caused by an uninsured vehicle, while the policyholder is exposed to a direct claim, the insurer that later issued the policy owing no indemnity for a period it never covered.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. 17 0 P 039018 12 Rev of 7 March 2013

A vehicle unintentionally set in motion in a repair shop is regarded as a vehicle in use (damage caused by a dangerous object)

Ruling: A motor vehicle that is unintentionally set in motion while standing in a repair shop for repair is to be regarded as a vehicle in use, and damage arising from the use of that vehicle is damage caused by a dangerous object.

From the reasoning of the decision: the assertions made on appeal on points of law, to the effect that the lower courts misapplied substantive law when, on the basis of a finding that the damage had been caused by the use of a motor vehicle as a dangerous object, they ordered the defendant insurance company with which the owner of the vehicle had insured his liability for damage to third persons to compensate the claimants according to the criterion of causation, are unfounded. The insurance company is answerable for the damage that occurred on the basis of Article 73 of the Law on Property and Personal Insurance, which prescribes compulsory insurance of the owner or user of a motor vehicle for damage caused to third persons by the use of the motor vehicle. By their action the claimants seek compensation from the defendant as insurer, asserting that the damage arose from the use of a motor vehicle. The defendant repeats on appeal on points of law the objection raised throughout the proceedings that the accident in which the claimants' relative was killed did not involve a vehicle in use, and that for that reason the defendant is not liable for the damage that occurred. On the basis of the results of the proceedings conducted, the lower courts established that the claimants' relative, the son, husband and father of the claimants, was killed in a motor vehicle repair shop while a vehicle insured with the defendant against liability for damage caused to third persons was being repaired. The accident occurred when a worker of the repair shop unintentionally set the vehicle in motion by turning the key in the ignition without checking whether the vehicle was in gear or in neutral and whether the handbrake was engaged, as a result of which the vehicle moved and crushed the claimants' relative against a wall with its right hand side. In the assessment of this court as well, the interpretation of the lower courts is correct, namely that damage arising in the manner established is to be regarded as damage caused by the use of a vehicle as a dangerous object, because damage caused to third persons during the repair of a vehicle is closely connected with the use of the vehicle, a vehicle being repaired precisely so that it may move. The Law on Property and Personal Insurance contains no provision stating what is to be regarded as the use of a vehicle, and practice has shown that it is impossible to foresee every case of damage that may be attributed to the use of motor vehicles. The lower courts correctly applied substantive law, namely the provisions of the Law on Property and Personal Insurance, when they concluded that the use of a vehicle is to be viewed as a cause of damage in the broader sense of that word. For those reasons the defendant's assertions on appeal on points of law, that liability for the damage that occurred rests solely with the owner of the repair shop in which the repair was being carried out, cannot be accepted. Such an interpretation by the defendant is narrow and tends to restrict insurance cover for damage caused by a vehicle in use to the time of driving alone, which would not correspond to the purpose of compulsory insurance of liability for damage caused to third persons by the use of a motor vehicle (motor liability insurance) on account of death, bodily injury, impairment of health, or the destruction of or damage to property. For the reasons stated the defendant is liable for the damage that occurred and is obliged to compensate the claimants in full.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. Rev-619/04 of 8 November 2005

The right to medical treatment abroad: health insurance legislation is lex specialis in relation to the Law on Obligations

Ruling: A beneficiary of health insurance acquires the right to medical treatment abroad when he has complied with the statutory procedure prescribed by the Law on Health Care, the Law on Health Insurance and the Rulebook on the conditions and manner of referring an insured person for treatment abroad. Those provisions are lex specialis in relation to the Law on Obligations.

The ruling settles the relationship between two possible bases of claim. A patient who has paid for treatment abroad out of his own means is inclined to frame the claim against the health insurance fund in the general law of obligations, whether as compensation for damage or as reimbursement of a necessary expense. The court rejected that route, holding that entitlement to treatment abroad exists only within the specialised regime that creates it, a regime consisting not only of the two statutes but also of the implementing rulebook governing the conditions of referral. Because that regime is lex specialis, its procedural requirements, in particular prior referral by the competent body, are conditions of the right itself rather than formalities that a court may set aside by applying the general rules of the Law on Obligations, and a claim brought without the prescribed prior procedure having been completed will fail.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. Rev-296/05 of 29 November 2005

The insurer also compensates intentionally caused damage, with a right of recourse against its policyholder

Ruling: An insurance company is obliged, on the basis of motor liability insurance, to compensate damage even where it was caused intentionally by the policyholder, and may then recover from the policyholder, as the person liable for the damage, the entire amount of compensation paid, together with interest and the costs incurred in that connection.

The ruling separates the protective function of compulsory motor liability insurance from the allocation of the ultimate burden. Towards the injured third party the insurer may not rely on the intent of its own policyholder, because compulsory insurance exists to guarantee compensation to persons injured by the use of a motor vehicle irrespective of the degree of fault of the person causing the damage; an exclusion for intentional acts operates in the internal relationship between insurer and policyholder, not against the victim. Once payment has been made, however, the claim shifts back to the policyholder in full, and the recovery covers not only the principal sum paid to the injured party but also the interest and the costs that arose in connection with the settlement of the claim.

Source: Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judgment No. Gvl-9/03 of 26 August 2003

Contract of collective accident insurance: the premium paid by the employer

Ruling: The fact that the premium under the concluded contract of insurance was paid out of its own means by the defendant, which insured its own employees, bears only on the character of the contract of insurance concluded and on any set off in the event of an accident at work or set off against motor liability insurance, but it does not affect the obligation to pay the sum insured upon the occurrence of the insured event.

From the reasoning of the decision: the subject matter of the dispute in these proceedings is the claimant's request that the defendant be ordered to pay him, on the basis of a contract of collective insurance against the consequences of accident, the amount of 1,600 KM together with interest accruing from 10 July 2001, and the costs of the proceedings. The claimant bases that request on the assertion that on 18 November 2000 he was injured when an unknown device exploded near his house, sustaining a serious injury to both eyes. He was at that time employed by the defendant and was, together with the other employees, insured with the defendant against accident for a sum insured of 16,000 KM in the event of total disability; since the accident resulted in partial disability of 10 per cent, he considers himself entitled to 10 per cent of the agreed sum. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the court of first instance established that under insurance policy number 002526 a contract of insurance had been concluded in which the contracting party was the defendant, while the insured persons were designated as the members of the contracting party's workforce according to a list; the insurance was concluded against the consequences of accident, namely death from illness at work and outside work; the events insured were death from illness for a sum insured of 2,400 KM, death from accident for 8,000 KM and permanent disability for 16,000 KM; cover commenced at 24.00 hours on 1 April 2000 and runs on a long term basis, while the premium for the period from 1 April 2000 to 1 April 2001 was fixed at 2,160 KM and was paid upon receipt of the invoice. The court therefore concluded that this policy satisfies the conditions and contains the elements required by Article 901 paragraph 1, Article 902 paragraph 1 and Article 904 of the Law on Obligations (Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 29/78, 39/85, 45/86 and 57/89, and Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska 17/93 and 3/96). Establishing further that the claimant had suffered a permanent loss of general working capacity of 10 per cent, the court concluded that the defendant has standing to be sued and that the claimant is entitled to the 1,600 KM claimed, and accordingly, relying on Articles 200 and 277 of the Law on Obligations, decided in the terms set out in the operative part of the contested judgment.

This court accepts the factual findings of the court of first instance as correct, since they accord with the evidence adduced in the first instance proceedings, and likewise accepts the conclusion as to the defendant's obligation to pay the amount claimed, save that this court considers that the claimant's request finds its basis in Article 919 of the Law on Obligations. In its grounds of appeal the defendant contests the contested judgment by arguing that the evidence adduced affords no basis for the conclusion that a contract of insurance was concluded between the claimant, as the contracting party, and the defendant, as the insurer, pointing out that the policy was signed by one and the same person, that is, by the defendant through an attorney by virtue of employment, so that in its view the second contracting party is lacking. It also points out that it was not established that the claimant, or indeed any of the defendant's employees, paid the premium, which was paid by the defendant out of its own means. For those reasons it considers that no legal relationship between the parties ever came into existence, and that Articles 897 and 901 of the Law on Obligations were misapplied; on appeal it thus repeats the objection, raised at first instance, that it lacks standing to be sued. According to policy number 00256, the contract was signed between the defendant, as the insuring organisation in the capacity of insurer on the one side, and the representative of the members of the defendant's workforce as insured persons on the other, and the submissions that no contract of insurance was concluded at all are therefore unfounded. The policy bears the defendant's seal and contains all the elements prescribed by Article 897 of the Law on Obligations, and the submissions that it was signed on behalf of the defendant's employees by a person without authority do not affect its validity, because in concluding the policy it was for the defendant to satisfy itself whether that person held authority to do so, having regard to Article 904 of the same law. According to the content of the policy itself, the insurance was concluded against the consequences of accident and death from illness at work and outside work, as supplementary conditions alongside the general conditions of insurance.

The submissions that the premium under that policy was paid by the defendant, which finds support in the evidence adduced, namely the accident report form for obligations under collective insurance policies, bear only on the character of the contract concluded and on any set off in the event that the accident occurred at work, or against motor liability insurance, but they do not affect the obligation to pay the sum insured upon the occurrence of the insured event. By this contract the defendant insured its own employees with the parent insuring organisation rather than with another insurance company, so that, the premium having been paid out of the defendant's means, what was concluded was a contract of collective combined insurance of the defendant's employees against the consequences of accident and death, which has the character both of a contract of insurance of persons and of a contract of insurance against liability for damage that employees may suffer at work. Since the insured event occurred outside work, and since it is not in dispute that the claimant was left with a disability of 10 per cent, the judgment at first instance correctly ordered the defendant to pay the claimant 10 per cent of the sum insured.

Source: District Court in Banja Luka, Judgment No. 011-0-Gz-06-000993 of 30 October 2008

How the office assists

Law Office Prnjavorac is based in Tuzla and acts for policyholders, injured parties and insurance intermediaries in insurance disputes throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Republika Srpska and in the Brcko District. The work covers the preparation of claims for compensation, correspondence during the statutory periods for a reasoned offer of settlement, litigation for payment of the sum insured or of compensation for personal injury and property damage, defence against recourse claims, claims against the Protection Fund where the vehicle was uninsured or unidentified, and claims addressed to the Green Card Bureau. A significant part of the practice concerns clients resident in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, other European Union member states and the United States. Such clients instruct the office in writing by power of attorney, sent by post or electronically, and correspondence is conducted by email in English or German, so that attendance in Bosnia and Herzegovina is generally unnecessary. An initial assessment of the prospects of a claim, including the applicable limitation period and the correct defendant, can be given once the accident documentation, the policy and the insurer's correspondence have been provided.

Related pages

• Legal services of the office (in Bosnian)
• Compensation of damage in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in Bosnian)
• Compensation of damage in the case law of the courts (in Bosnian)
• Law of obligations (in Bosnian)
• Where the injured party has been partly indemnified under property insurance, it may claim the difference up to the full amount from the liable person (in Bosnian)
• Compensation of damage arising from an insured event (in Bosnian)
• Rights under comprehensive motor insurance on a change of the vehicle owner (in Bosnian)
• Limitation of the insurer's recourse claim under comprehensive motor insurance (in Bosnian)
• Law on Compulsory Insurance in Traffic of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (in Bosnian)
• Law on Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, PDF (in Bosnian)
• Request legal assistance (in Bosnian)

Frequently asked questions