Prosecutor's Office of Sarajevo Canton forms case regarding Pero Matijević, who allegedly caused damage of 264,391 KM to the FBiH Tax Administration!

SARAJEVO, (Patria) - Directors of state institutions in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are often faced with illogical decisions by the Appeals Committee of the Civil Service of FBiH, headed by Pero Matijević (HDZ BiH), which subsequently result in financial damage amounting to tens of thousands of KM. Of course, these costs are borne by the citizens of BiH.

Precisely because of this, as confirmed to Patria, Matijević has been reported to the Prosecutor's Office of Sarajevo Canton on suspicion of committing the criminal offense of abuse of office.

"The Prosecutor's Office of Sarajevo Canton received the report on 08.04.2021. A case has been formed and the allegations in the report will be investigated to determine if there are elements of a criminal offense," the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office told Patria.

What is it all about? It was unofficially confirmed to Patria that Matijević, who is in his third term as head of the Committee, often overturns the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission with the other two members and reinstates civil servants to their jobs.

For example, by using their official position or authority unlawfully and contrary to the interests of the service, by failing to perform their official duties, and with the aim of obtaining benefits for others, they caused damage to the Tax Administration of FBiH in the total amount of 264,391 KM.

Pero Matijević, in his capacity as the presiding member of the Committee, along with other members of the Committee, by deciding on the appeals of Tax Administration employees against the decision on termination of employment, exceeded the legal deadlines for deciding on appeals, thereby enabling employees to obtain property benefits!

Thus, an inspector who was given the measure of changing his work position by the disciplinary commission was acquitted, even though it was established that he had requested 400 KM from a client, received 300 KM, and that he had visited taxpayers outside of working hours who had not issued fiscal receipts, threatened them with a fine, and then offered them forgiveness in exchange for acquaintance with the workers!?

The Committee claims otherwise.

"The first-instance disciplinary commission (formed by the Civil Service Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina) issued a decision determining that the civil servant is not responsible for the alleged violation of official duty, as there is insufficient evidence that the civil servant took 300 KM and 100 kg of apples from the taxpayer. Furthermore, the first-instance disciplinary commission acquitted the civil servant of responsibility for the alleged violation of official duty because there are no elements of disciplinary responsibility of the accused in relation to the allegations of the initiator of the disciplinary procedure that the civil servant behaved inappropriately by arranging car repairs for his brother at a taxpayer's shop.

In relation to the allegations of the initiator of the disciplinary procedure concerning the report of the civil servant's behavior in 2015, in which a female person stated that the civil servant had promised to employ her in a betting shop and asked for a favor in return, the first-instance disciplinary commission determined that the statute of limitations for initiating disciplinary proceedings had expired," the Appeals Committee stated.

Patria was informed that the complainant knew about the statute of limitations, but it was stated in the report due to the fact that actions that are not in accordance with the law are being repeated.

"The first-instance disciplinary commission, by the same decision, found the civil servant responsible for abuse and exceeding official powers because a tampered order for the control of a taxpayer, which was not issued at all, was found on the civil servant's official computer, as well as a scanned and completed document from another civil service body, which the civil servant should not have had access to, and blank anonymous reports for inspection in which alleged illegal activities were reported, and imposed a disciplinary measure of demotion to a lower category within the job positions from Article 6 of the Law on Civil Service, i.e., to the position of expert advisor," the committee said.

They did not precisely state whether a person with such accusations should work in the civil service, but they said:

"The Committee did acquit the disciplined person, but not for the reasons you state. Namely, in the appeal procedure, acting on the appeal of the accused, the Committee determined that the first-instance disciplinary commission did not unequivocally establish the existence of a violation of official duty consisting of abuse and exceeding official powers. In the disciplinary procedure, it was only established that the civil servant possessed documents on his computer that, according to witness statements in that procedure, he should not have possessed. It was not established, nor proven, what the civil servant did with those documents," the Appeals Committee claims.

They also added that the personal opinion of the presiding member or members of the Civil Service Appeals Committee on a specific case is completely irrelevant for making decisions of the Committee.