CH/02/12470 66. Bosnia and Herzegovina did not make any further submissions on the admissibility and merits of the application. B. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1. As to the facts 67. The Federation of BiH states that the applicant was appointed according to Article 21 paragraph 1 of the Law on Federal Ministries and Other Bodies of the Federal Administration and performed all duties until 12 April 2001, the day the Government of the Federation of BiH discharged him of his duty as Assistant Minister of Defence, as published in the Official Gazette. SFOR approved the removal from position and service of the applicant, as a high-ranking military officer, in its undated letter (see paragraph 44 above). 68. On 20 May 2001, a member of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency issued a decision ceasing the active duty of the applicant due to the applicant’s retirement; the decision was taken in accordance with Article 22 paragraph 1 of the Law on Defence of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 3 paragraph 2 of the Decree (see paragraphs 46 and 51 above). 69. On 20 May 2001, the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence issued a procedural decision, in accordance with Articles 125 and 168 paragraph 4 of the Law on Employment Relations and Salaries of Employees of Administrative Bodies in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Decree, ceasing the applicant’s labour relation (see paragraphs 50-52, 54 and 55 above). The applicant did not appeal either of the decisions. 2. As to the admissibility 70. The Federation of BiH considers the application to be inadmissible, on the grounds that the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies. Among the domestic remedies that the applicant could have exhausted, but did not, are the following. First, Article 222 paragraph 6 of the Law on Administrative Procedure allows for an administrative dispute before the competent court. This means that the applicant could have initiated an administrative dispute against the decision issued on 12 April 2001, that discharged him of his duties as Assistant Minister of Defence. Secondly, the applicant could have filed an appeal against the decision issued by the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence of 20 May 2001, within 8 days after he had received the decision. 71. The Federation of BiH considers the case inadmissible not only because the domestic remedies have not been exhausted, but also because the application had not been filed within 6 months from such date on which the final decision was taken. The respondent Party notes that the decision by the Government of the Federation of BiH was issued on 12 April 2001 and the decision of the Federation of BiH Ministry of Defence was issued on 20 May 2001 and the applicant did not file an application to the Chamber until 28 November 2002. This means that the six months rule, as required under Article VIII(2)(a) of the Agreement, has not been respected. 3. As to the merits a. Article 6 of the Convention 72. The Federation of BiH refers to Articles 18 and 19 of the Law on the Government of the Federation of BiH (see paragraphs 57 and 58) to show that the applicant has been discharged from his duties as the Assistant Minister of Defence according to a procedure provided by law. As already set out above, the applicant could have initiated an administrative dispute against this decision of 12 April 2001, therefore a fair procedure was available to him. Later SFOR gave its permission for the discharge of the applicant as military officer. The Federation of BiH notes that this permission was given in accordance with the General Framework Agreement. 73. The decision of 20 May 2001, ceasing the active duty of the applicant due to his retirement was taken in accordance with Article 22 paragraph 1 of the Law on Defence of the Federation of BiH 12