Is the European path or the European halt? While Brussels is expecting results, Bosnia and Herzegovina is still looking for an answer. Which versions of the key laws will be the first to get the green light? Will the one billion BAM from the Growth Plan remain available or be irretrievably lost? Guests to the Plenum show were: Davor Bunoza, Predrag Kojović, and Nenad Grković.
Kojović: The Court of Appeal of Bosnia and Herzegovina Has to Exist if We Want To Join the EU
Our Party MP in the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Predrag Kojović, said that the core of this law is the establishment of the transparent and independent Court of Appeal of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which represents a standard existing in all countries aspiring to the EU integration.
“The law is called the Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Court of Appeal of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it should be called in every normal country. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina exists; therefore, another must exist as well, the independent court which reviews its decisions – the Court of Appeal of Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Kojović said.
He emphasized that the court based in Sarajevo and its competencies are defined in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
“The competencies are defined in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, and are slightly expanded. The name of the court is finally what it should be. Up until now, we have been coming up with various euphemisms to persuade someone to support a technical law.”
Speaking about the adoption of the law in draft form, Kojović said that the proposal passed primarily because some SNSD MPs were absent. “It was actually adopted as a draft because a large number of people from the SNSD left the session. Of course, the law will come under consideration, and in the end, there is always the House of Peoples, which is often a graveyard for good laws.”
He believes it’s high time to call a spade a spade when it comes to judicial institutions. “It is not an appeals chamber or an appellate division of some other court. It is the court reviewing the decisions of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is called the Court of Appeal of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
Commenting on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU path, Kojović said he was surprised by the statement of EU Delegation Head Luigi Soreca.
“I was unpleasantly surprised by the statement of Luigi Soreca. He said he was hoping that Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU path would remain open by adopting the two laws proposed by the Ministry of Justice. The proposals that were significantly closer to the European standards did not receive such support.”
He recalled submitting 20 amendments to the earlier HJPC draft law, all based on Venice Commission recommendations. “A total of 31 amendments were adopted. Some claimed this disfigured the law, but our intention was exactly the opposite—to align it with European standards.
Kojović believes that EU representatives are currently not sufficiently involved in reform efforts. “With the previous EU representatives, we made serious laws. They were included in the process and were clear about the EU standards. I think that Soreca is not as involved in his work as he should be.”
Speaking of the Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Davor Bunoza, and Kojović believes he is one of the most competent professionals to ever hold that office.
“He is a fantastic lawyer and probably one of the most competent professionals to ever hold that office.”
But he thinks the issue arises when political interest transcends the professional argument. “His problem arises when his legal expertise is relegated to the background, and his political interests come to the foreground. I am sure he is aware that the laws he proposed are not entirely aligned with European standards.”
He particularly highlighted the HJPC’s composition. “A key issue is the council’s ethnic makeup. We proposed a five-year period during which the emphasis on the ethnicity of HJPC members would be gradually phased out. This is unacceptable for the proponents.”
Kojović concluded that jurisdiction and European reforms will remain key political priorities in the coming period, especially regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina’s obligations on the EU path.
Bunoza: I Am Not Optimistic that the Law on the BiH Court Will Receive the Required Support, but It Is Necessary to reach a Compromise
The Minister of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Davor Bunoza, spoke about the Draft Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Appeal Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, judicial reform, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU path, and the appointment of the chief negotiator. He emphasized that it is about solutions that have been previously considered, but that their adoption requires political support.
Bunoza mentioned that he had analyzed the Draft Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Court of Appeal of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He concluded that the version resembles earlier proposals from the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“This is actually a version that was very similar to the earlier versions of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which we actually tried to have adopted at the Council of Ministers,” Bunoza said.
He recalled that the previous attempts did not receive the required support, stating that the representatives from Republika Srpska did not allow such proposals to be on the agenda. “The adoption was impossible. The SNSD MPs were not present; therefore, it is very uncertain whether the law will receive support,” he said.
According to him, different versions of the law have been considered for years, but it is more important to find a solution that can secure enough votes in the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“Unfortunately, I am not optimistic. However, these are all versions we have been working on for perhaps ten years, and intensively over the last three. Still, it is necessary to find a version of the law that will actually secure enough votes in the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH,” he highlighted.
Speaking about the proposal by the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bunoza stated that the goal was to further reinforce judicial independence through a more transparent separation of first-instance and appellate proceedings.
“It was not disputed that the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council appoints the judges of the Appeal division; it was not disputed that the court has separate calculation and a separate court president. With this, we believe we are making a significant step forward for our jurisdiction,” he said.
He added that the current model, under which the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has a single president for both the first-instance and appellate levels, does not align with European standards. “Today, in the Court of BiH, you have one court president for both the trial and appellate levels. In fact, the HJPC does not directly appoint judges to the Appellate Division; they share the same budget, and this is not in line with European standards,” Bunoza stated.
Looking back at the possible amendments to the law and the issue of support in the House of Peoples, he said he is not familiar with the opposition from the HDZ of Bosnia and Herzegovina. “HDZ is a political party that has actually always supported all laws and prescriptions important for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU path,” he said.
He emphasized that eventual deficiencies can be addressed through the amendment process.
According to him, the most important issue is not the court headquarters, but its independence and the possibility of efficient appellate procedures. “It is important that the court has a truly separate, independent appellate court, its president, and not a single connection with the first instance, in order to enable parties to have an effective legal remedy on disposal,” he said.
Speaking about the European laws before the House of Peoples, Bunoza stated that he doesn’t see a single reason the laws shouldn’t be considered.
“We have amendments to the Law on Administrative Procedure on the agenda of the House of Peoples prescribing a very clear digital transformation, and they have just been sitting there for months,” he said.
Regarding the Growth Plan and the appointment of the BiH chief negotiator with the European Union, Bunoza stated that the funds are not yet lost, but the appointment should have been finalized earlier. “As for the Growth Plan, I believe the money is not yet lost,” he noted.
He added that the mistake is that the chief negotiator was not appointed earlier. “I still think that it is a big mistake that we haven’t appointed the negotiator at the Council of Ministers a few months ago, maybe even the previous year,” Bunoza said, adding it is necessary to appoint the person who will have a technical and operational role in the process of European integrations.
Grković: We Will Not Support the Law on HJPC without Rigorous Asset Vetting of Judges and Prosecutors
Nenad Grković, a Member of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH from the ‘For Justice and Order’ list, spoke about the draft laws on the Court of BiH and the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC), which the RS opposition had previously submitted to the procedure. He emphasized that his party maintains its stance that strict asset checks for judicial office holders are crucial in the fight against corruption.
Grković recalled that the opposition proposed draft legislation on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the HJPC due to what he described as the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s inactivity.
“First of all, you should know that we proposed them because the Council of Ministers was not doing its job. These laws should have come, above all, from the Council of Ministers,” Grković said.
As he stated, the Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to pass both its first and second reading, while the proposal of the Law on the HJPC remained in the procedure. According to him, the opposition did not propose a completely new legislative solution but refined the existing draft prepared in the Council of Ministers.
“To put it simply, we took the law that was in preparation at the Council of Ministers, but we tightened the law regarding the property issue, vetting the property of judges and prosecutors, as we believed it was crucial,” he said.
Grković claimed that the asset vetting regulations sparked reactions and opposition from parts of the judicial community.
“When that law reached the public, they immediately launched an attack. From the Council of Ministers and the HJPC members, everyone called it an evil law, and it is interesting that their greatest issue is the asset vetting,” he said.
Speaking about the state in the legislation, he assessed that it is necessary to introduce stricter asset declarations for judges and prosecutors, and said that his political option will not support solutions that do not include this.
“We will certainly continue to insist and won’t support any other law that is not strict regarding the asset vetting, primarily of judges and prosecutors, because we consider it to be the key issue in this country,” he said.
Reflecting the withdrawal of the proposal of the Law on HJPC, Grković said that the text of the law underwent numerous changes during the public debate and the later amendment process.
“That law did not resemble what we proposed, so seeing the bigger picture and realizing that nothing would come of those funds from the Growth Plan, we withdrew that law,” he said.
When asked if the same proposal would be sent back into the procedure, he replied that it would not happen during this mandate.
“We certainly will not do it until the next convocation,” Grković said.
Commenting on the proposal submitted by Predrag Kojović, Grković assessed it as a brave move. But he expressed doubt about the chance of its implementation by the end of the current convocation.
“A very brave suggestion. Maybe that Law should have been pushed into the procedure in that form earlier. It is a bit suspicious to me, I can say, that it was pushed right at the end, because I don’t believe anything can be done about it. We might have one or two more sessions, and that’s it,” he concluded.
