Bosnia-Herzegovina Country Profile

Judicial System

Individual Corruption

Surveys reveal that citizens in Bosnia-Herzegovina perceive the judiciary to be highly corrupt. Recent reforms of the judiciary are likely to improve the perception of the judiciary among ordinary citizens, but it is still too early to evaluate the impact of these initiatives. The government's attempt to reduce corruption by increasing the salaries of judges has not functioned as intended, and there are reports that these measures have only increased the amount needed to bribe judges.

An overwhelming backlog of unresolved cases before the country's courts (over 1.3 million) significantly reduces citizens' right to public hearing within reasonable time.

According to Transparency International 2007, corruption in the judiciary does not take the form of bribes in return for a favourable ruling due to the well-defined right to appeal to an appellate court, which makes it highly unlikely that any person will be able to bribe all judges in this process. However, corruption in the judiciary takes the form of payments made to resolve cases before their turn, payments to resolve cases in an accelerated procedure, payments to prolong decision or delay in forwarding the case to the appellate court.

Business Corruption

Companies should note that, despite reforms initiated within the judiciary, courts remain slow, inefficient and corrupt. Recently adopted laws to strengthen institutional capacity within the judiciary have been undermined by poor training of judges, prosecutors and support staff at lower levels.

Surveys reveal that a significant proportion of companies believe that judges are involved in corruption. These surveys cite the functioning of the judiciary as a problem for doing business in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Contract violations are another major concern for companies, and the weak judicial structures in Bosnia-Herzegovina mean that no means for quick resolution of commercial disputes are provided.

At local levels, courts operate with less independent oversight, meaning that other kinds of corruption may exist. The judiciary in Republika Srpska is reported to have been more successful in addressing corruption than the judiciary in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Political Corruption

The judiciary suffers from a complex structure and a lack of harmonisation between different institutions within the judiciary throughout the country. Moreover, Freedom House 2008 reports that the judicial system is still not free from ethnic or political interference, despite recent reforms to eliminate such undue influence. Judges who try to exert independence are reportedly subject to various forms of intimidation.

The international community's High Representative to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Miroslav Lajcak, has criticised the Bosnian Serb authories for persistently refusing to cooperate with the State Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Prosecutor's Office in investigations relating to possible corruption in the Serb entity.

Politics has intruded into the courts as it has into every aspect of life. Over the past year, cases against high-level politicians or organised crime figures have ended in acquittal, reversal on appeal or escape from custody. In the past year, prosecutors have not brought indictments against any major political figures. Citizens are getting a clear message that their courts will not hold the political elite accountable.

The most recent prominent case of judicial corruption was the trial against Dragan Covic, President of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) of Bosnia-Herzegovina party since 2005 and former Croat member of the presidency. The Office of the High Representative first dismissed him in 2005 and sentenced him to five years in prison for corruption in November 2006. Covic's release on a EUR 1.5 million bail and subsequent active role in negotiations for forming a new Bosnian government revealed the extent of political influence on the judiciary.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2009:
- Enforcing a commercial contract through the courts requires a company to go through an average of 38 administrative procedures, which takes an average of 595 days at a cost of 38.5% of the claim.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007:
- The judiciary scores 4.2 on a 5-point scale in the public opinion survey (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS 2005:
- 20% of companies report that bribery is frequent when dealing with courts.

The World Bank & IFC: Investment Climate Surveys 2005:
- 20.5% of companies identify the legal system/conflict resolution as a major constraint to doing business.

- 40.5% of companies resolve disputes through court action.

- 58.5% of companies have confidence in the legal system to enforce contract/property rights disputes.