Transparency International in BiH filed a complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Prosecutor against Milanko Kaganić, the chief prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who during the past year assigned the vast majority of cases outside the automatic management system of TCMS, which is why his predecessor in this position, Gordana Tadić, was dismissed, TI BiH announced today.
After the end of the appeal procedure, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted to Transparency International the data on the number of cases in which the chief prosecutor made presignations, i.e. assigned cases outside the automatic management system, and the data show that in 2022 the number of presignations is greater than the total number of cases that this prosecution had in operation.
“This practically means that TCMS is rarely used and cases are almost never assigned automatically. Specifically, in 2021, in which Gordana Tadić was dismissed due to circumvention of the TCMS, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina had 1,499 cases and a total of 1,434 presignations, with a note that multiple presignations are possible in one case where several prosecutors are working on it. During 2022, the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina had 1473 cases in its work and a total of 2276 presignations, i.e. cases in which the chief prosecutor chose the prosecutor who will deal with a specific case outside of the automatic management system.
TI BiH reminds that Article 8 of the Rulebook on the System for Automatic Cases in Prosecutor’s Offices (TCMS) stipulates that the distribution of cases to prosecutors is done automatically, because this way corrupt risks are reduced. Also, by the conclusion of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2014, all chief prosecutors were tasked to ensure the assignment of cases through TCMS in their institutions. The chief prosecutor has the right to assign a case to another prosecutor if there are reasons for it, but, if it is taken into account that this is an exception and not a rule, the fact that the number of assignments is greater than the total number of cases in the work may indicate serious omissions in the work of the chief prosecutor”, state the TI BiH.
They also add that there is a reason to suspect that the Chief Prosecutor of BiH acted contrary to the provisions of the Rulebook and the Conclusion of the HJPC.
“Also, there is a reason to suspect that the Chief Prosecutor of BiH acted contrary to the provisions of the Rulebook and the Conclusion of the HJPC and committed the disciplinary offenses of “negligence or inattention in the performance of official duties” and “failure, for unjustified reasons, to act in accordance with the decisions, orders or requests of the Council” from the Law on the HJPC.
This behavior is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Ethics for prosecutors, and it should also be recalled the Joint Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe – Directorate for Human Rights (DHR) of the General Directorate for Human Rights and the Rule of Law, in which it is emphasized that the allocation of cases within courts and prosecutor’s offices should follow objective, predetermined criteria, in order to protect the right to independent and impartial judicial and prosecutorial action.
Transparency International BiH reminds that the Disciplinary Commission of the HJPC of BiH has already conducted and legally concluded disciplinary proceedings against the former chief prosecutor Gordana Tadić as well as against some other chief prosecutors in BiH for the same offenses in which disciplinary measures were imposed.
“It is important to note that the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina repeatedly refused to provide TI BIH with data on the number of presignations, so in 2018 and 2019 they claimed that they did not keep accurate statistics, so the information was provided only after the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina handed down judgments in favor of TI BiH. This year, they submitted the data on presignatures only after the declaration, because the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina initially claimed that the request was not precisely formulated”, they added.
