Warning: Conflict of Interest in Judiciary Still Unregulated

Transparency International in Bosnia and Herzegovina (TI BiH) has published an analysis titled Conflict of Interest in the Judiciary – Review of Regulations and Recommendations, focusing on key weaknesses and recommendations for improving the integrity of the judiciary and strengthening preventive mechanisms in this area, reports the Patria news agency.

 

The analysis identified several legal gaps that must be urgently addressed:

-There are no unified and harmonised rules on conflict of interest for all holders of judicial functions, as this is currently regulated only for members of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council.

-The Rulebook on Conflict of Interest for HJPC members does not provide all instruments for preventing conflicts of interest among HJPC members, such as restrictions on advancement during or after the term of office. This is particularly problematic given that the HJPC has a monopoly on deciding the advancement of judicial office holders.

-The membership of lawyers in the HJPC is also problematic, as they are inherently in a conflict of interest by deciding on the engagement and advancement of judges before whom they later represent clients.

-There are no restrictions on the professional engagement of judicial office holders after leaving the judiciary, which would prevent conflicts of interest or judges and prosecutors working on cases they previously handled.

-There are no detailed and comprehensive mechanisms to prevent nepotism in judicial employment.

-Financial reports and asset declarations of judicial office holders are not publicly available, and there are no mechanisms or authorities to verify them, rendering the obligation to submit them meaningless.

The analysis also showed that in situations where certain aspects of integrity assurance are provided for by the legal framework, clear authorities for determining and sanctioning conflicts of interest or controlling asset declarations are not ensured.

In its recommendations, TI BiH emphasises the need to extend the Rulebook on Conflict of Interest for HJPC members to all holders of judicial functions, as well as to improve it by limiting and clearly prescribing the maximum amount of income from additional engagement and employment after the end of the term of HJPC members.

Regarding the authority over the application of conflict of interest rules in the judiciary and the control of asset declarations, recommendations go in two directions – assigning authority to an independent institution (e.g., the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption) that would be responsible for implementing all regulations on conflict of interest and asset declarations for all officials, including judicial ones, or establishing a special department within the HJPC that would be specialised and have the capacity to determine conflicts of interest and impose sanctions.

The measures proposed by TI BiH have also been highlighted within the Structural Dialogue on Judicial Reform; however, no progress has been recorded in this process for almost three years since these recommendations were defined at the sessions of the Structural Dialogue.

In light of new pressures on the work of judicial bodies, TI BiH believes that it is more necessary than ever to complete the process of detailed regulation of conflict of interest in the judiciary, especially the methods of its determination, in order to restore the damaged trust of citizens, the statement reads.