Get documents about "STANDING COMMITTEE FOR COURT ADMINISTRATIONeng
Document Sample
GUIDELINES ON STATUS ANALYSIS AND PLANS FOR THE
SETTLEMENT OF THE BACKLOGS AT THE COURTS OF
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Sarajevo, 2005
1
Table of contents:
Page:
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................3
II. THE ANALYSIS OF CAUSES THAT LED TO THE BACKLOGS….4
A. External reasons
1. Quality of legal decisions………………………………………………..4
2. Poor work of other bodies and institutions……………………………5
3. The Effects of war……………………………………………………….5
B. Internal causes
1. Insufficient number of judges………………………………………….5
2. Idle working time………………………………………………………..6
3. Non-existence of quality and proper standards and quotas for the
work of judges……………………………………………………………...6
4. Incompetence of judges and court presidents…………………………7
5. Untrained court staff……………………………………………………7
6. Financial work conditions………………………………………………8
7. Lack of information technology………………………………………...8
III. DEFINITION OF A “BACKLOG OF UNRESOLVED CASESS” AND
CRITICAL POINT OF COURT TARDINESS…………………………..8
CRIMINAL DEPARTMENT
A. First instance……………………………………………………………9
B. Second instance ………………………………………………………..10
CIVIL DEPARTMENT
A. First instance…………………………………………………………...10
B. Second instance…………………………………………………………11
C. Revisions and repeating of proceedings………………………………11
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT
A. First instance……………………………………………………………12
B. Second instance of administrative cases on extraordinary legal
remedies…………………………………………………………………12
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT…………………………………..12
IV. DEFINITION OF A “BACKLOG OF UNRESOLVED CASES” AND
CRITICAL POINT OF COURT TARDINESS…………………………..13
A. EXTERNAL MEASURES - legislative changes...................................13
B. INTERNAL MEASURES - being undertaken within each court…...20
V. THE WORK ON THE HJPC ON MONITORING OF RESULTS OF
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO RESOLVING THE BACKLOG CASES…24
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Upon the adoption of the Annual Report on the work of the High Judicial and
Prosecutorial Council of BiH for 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the „HJPC of
BiH“) that was preceded by the thorough analysis of the reports concerning
the work of all courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the conference of the
HJPC of BiH held with the court presidents in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
consultations of the president of BiH Court, Supreme Courts of Republika
Srpska and the Federation of BiH with cantonal and district courts as well as
analysis of the USAID-JSDP (report done by Robert M. Marche) as well as
the latest status analysis of the backlog cases of the HJPC's session held on 22
August, 2005, a large number of backlogs and unresolved financing issues in
judiciary were undoubtedly identified as a major problem of the judiciary in
Bosnia and Herzegovina at present.
This problem, ie., the backlog cases, has already assumed frightening
proportions in certain areas (the Basic Court in Banja Luka, the Municipal
Court in Sarajevo) and is rightfully considered as a „tumor“ of the current
judiciary and represents huge burden for the overall system. This issue
questions all other plans and programs aiming at the establishment of the
stable and effective judiciary.
The backlog issue directly undermines the efficient implementation of new
legal solutions and reformed judicial institute, as is the case with meeting
newly set legal deadlines, recognition of the fundamental human rights and
freedoms in terms of fair trial, trial within the reasonable time, the right to
property, the right to have a home, the right to return to it, etc. The essence
and substance of overall judicial reform that has shown some positive results
in the past two years, have been primarily based on a fair trial without undue
delays for the parties to the proceeding.
Having in mind that the backlog issue, mainly inherited from the pre-reform
period, represents the major problem for the operation of courts at this
moment and decreases significantly the outcome of the judicial reform and the
recognition of the fundamental human rights and freedoms in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the HJPC of BiH , in its Strategic Plan for the period March
2005-December-2006, under the activity no. 4.5 , envisages a backlog
registration system and collection of data on such cases from courts in BiH as
well as preparation of programs for handling the backlog of court cases. The
implementers of the activities are the Standing Committee for Court
Administration and the Secretariat of the HJPC (hereinafter referred to as the
„Standing Committee for Court Administration“) and the Secretariat of the
HJPC of BiH.
3
Given the fact that most courts overburdened with huge backlog cases have
made no plans for the backlog settlement, while some other courts do not
know how to prepare quality and purposive plans, the HJPC of BIH has
decided to set up an expert team which has been tasked to define the cause of
the backlog problem within the short time and to propose uniform and binding
solutions and rules of procedure in regard to the settlement of the backlog
cases in order to initiate an activity to urgently and efficiently overcome the
problem, which is not only a problem of the judiciary but also of the society.
For the preparation of the document, the working group has used immediate
experience gained through the work of the Federation Supreme Court of BiH
and Republika Srpska , District Court in Banja Luka, Cantonal Court in
Mostar, conclusions made at the seminar held in Neum on 30 March, 2005
and attended by the presidents of the Court of BiH, Entity Supreme Courts,
District and Cantonal courts in BiH, then recommendations number R (86) 12,
R (84) 5 and R (95) 12 of the Ministers’ Committee of the Counsel of Europe,
opinion number 2 (2001) of the Consultation Counsel of European Judges
(CCJE) as well as a report and recommendations of the USAID JSDP’s expert
Robert M. Marche of June 6, 2005 and some constructive knowledge gained
from the USAID FAIL program at the pilot courts in BiH.
Upon presentation of the Analysis of current backlog cases in courts of BiH
and upon presentation of working paper of the Working group, the HJPC of
BIH has assessed that following would be the best for the activity:
Set up a working group i.e., an expert team composed of our eminent
experts for the field and members of the Standing Committee for Court
Administration of the HJPC and the Secretariat of the HJPC to draw
up a Strategic Plan and Program of HJPC of BIH concerning the
settlement of the backlog of unresolved cases that is to include all
available and possible methods and steps in resolving the backlog
issue more efficiently;
Parallel to that activity, the Standing Committee for Court
Administration shall draw up a Guidelines for settlement of backlog
cases for all courts in BIH, which should oblige all courts to
consistently and urgently take action and, if necessary to take
extraordinary measures to overcome these problems with regular and
continuous monitoring of the activity outcome.
Accurate data on the type and number of unresolved cases
accumulated in the course of past years from all courts in BiH should
be submitted immediately to the Secretariat of the HJPC according to
the case category, number of judges assigned to each category, number
of cases per judge and monthly quotas per category of cases, that
would represent a basis for defining the current status and further
activities,
The Committee should define the backlog of unresolved cases as well
as courts and areas facing the issue of the backlogs,
4
Representatives of JSDP and USAID FAIL program should be
engaged in the activity related to the part of the Strategic Plan, using
their experience from already realized programs as well as experience
of foreign experts currently working on those projects,
The HJPC should then prepare its Plan and program concerning the
settlement of the backlog of unresolved cases obligating all courts to
proceed consistently and to use the same Plan and program and
Guidance of the expert team or defining some extraordinary measures
to overcome the issue in some areas,
II. THE ANALYSIS OF CAUSES THAT LED TO THE BACKLOG
B. External reasons
1. Quality of legal decisions
Existing legislation before the judiciary reform, i.e., existing procedural laws
enabled endless proceedings with postponed hearings without any explanation or
responsibility neither by a party nor a judge, endless presentations of new evidence,
limitless possibilities of first-instance judgment suspensions and remanding of cases
to retrials, the existence of claims to the court decisions in administrative disputes
that led to extremely long proceedings, courts were obliged to handle the most
trivial administrative cases because of “administrative silence”, long regular
proceedings have taken place for the least significant and not socially dangerous
criminal acts, great number of criminal decisions of lower tier courts have been
repealed and remanded.
Due to the procedural legislation before the reform, judges were unnecessarily
and constantly engaged in the work of the court councils, but neither as presidents
of the councils nor as referee judges wasting so their time instead of adjudicating
cases they were assigned to.
The existing legal regulations regarding the utility services and discipline of
payment transactions have been transferred to courts as regulators of payment
transactions and enforced collection of small utility debts, and since those disputes
make the biggest part of the backlog that prevents courts to deal with more
important and real judicial cases causing a hyper-production of the backlog of
unresolved cases in our judiciary.
2. Poor work of other bodies and institutions:
A significant part of unresolved cases is caused due to the poor work of other
bodies, organizations and institutions, for example, administrative bodies, due to
misuse of the institute of “administrative silence” by administrative bodies, idleness
and bad work of post-office delivery service, police organs, tax, customs and
financial inspection offices and services, unorganized work and poor quality of
public attorneys’ work, irregular application of legal provisions, etc.
5
3. The Effects of war
The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina produced such types of disputes and court
cases, which are neither known nor possible in the period of peace, for example:
issues of war damages, unpaid salaries for the Army forces, issues concerning the
degree and types of invalidity of war veterans, recognition of service, issues
concerning the pre-war foreign-exchange savings, return of property and apartments,
issues related to the war crimes etc., all of these have immensely increased the
number of disputes and cases before the courts.
B. Internal causes
1. Determination of required number of judges
The first step of the judiciary reform was to reduce the number of courts and judges
and to identify the number of judges according to the total number of cases,
population in the area and geographical position of courts. The unresolved cases
criterion was not appropriate one for identification of the required number of judges
per each court since upon the settlement of unresolved cases the courts could face a
surplus-employee problem. Therefore, additional judges have been engaged and
greater number of judicial associates has been planned. However, besides the
identification method for the required number of judges and other mechanisms
purposed to help courts to settle backlog cases, there are at present certain courts in
Bosnia and Herzegovina that cannot efficiently settle their backlog cases. These
courts are also affected by a number of unoccupied positions for regular judges which
is caused by insufficient number of quality candidates to apply to the vacant
positions, impossibility to satisfy national structure of court employees etc. Also,
appointment of additional judges was delayed because there was no quality pool of
applicants.
2. Idle working time
During the transitional and reappointment time period, the courts and judges almost
stopped working that caused enormous increase of unresolved cases, especially
during the transitional period.
Apparent disrespect of fixed working hours by judges and other judicial staff was
present at courts before the reform and it is still present, meaning that eight working
hours, i.e, 7,5 per day are not used efficiently and there is too much of idle and
unused time during the working hours of judges.
Also, judges have spent too much time in dealing with administrative and simple jobs
that could have been done by the administrative court staff, associates and trainees
thus wasting their working hours instead of adjudicating cases.
3. Non-existence of quality and proper standards and quotas for the
work of judges
6
Up-to-date system of standards (orientation standards) having an emphasis
on the number of unresolved cases regardless of the complexity of a case, enabled
judges to work on less complex cases until the quota was fulfilled; different standards
were used in each court, therefore a number of less complex cases was handled by
judges to the detriment of quality and the backlog of unresolved cases, etc. The
system was, basically, very unjust and un-objective and directly generated a huge
backlog of unresolved cases while some categories of judges achieved very good
results without any work on the backlog of unresolved cases. For this reason, some
judges had enormously high working results that significantly exceeded the existing
orientation standards.
It should be noted here that the absence of a quality and proper monitoring of the
work of judges have enabled some judges to adjudicate only less complex cases, to
choose cases, not to utilize their working hours properly, to render decisions of poor
quality, not to be responsible for undue length of proceedings, etc.
4. Incompetence of judges and court presidents
The results of reappointment of judges and test results of quality performance and
knowledge of judges showed that, during the pre-reform period, we had a great
number of judges who were far from being competent, trained or interested to
perform their judicial function in a quality and legal manner, and who, through their
incompetence, non-commitment, lack of knowledge and attitude toward the work
“contributed” to a huge backlog of unresolved cases in BIH that had repercussions on
the overall status of unresolved cases.
Many un-conscientious judges and court presidents have assigned complex and
unresolved cases to the new, young, inexperienced judges who, besides a good will to
do it are overburdened with such cases, as well as newly assigned, and will not be
able to settle them for a long time.
Given the fact that only few court presidents have remained on their functions after
the appointment process, it became apparent that presidents had missed the
opportunity to react with reference to the existence of huge backlog cases by
developing any plans or programs in order to solve a major judicial problem thus
allowing a bigger backlog. Being in charge for the court administration and being the
most responsible persons for finding a solution to the problem they are the persons
who bear the guilt for it.
Most presidents have not considered it necessary to analyze the backlog or to develop
plans and programs for the settlement of such cases. There are still many courts
without such plans and programs.
5. Untrained court staff
Great number of qualified and trained staff left courts during the war and post-war
period and were replaced by totally unqualified and persons shortly trained for the
court work that resulted in unprofessional and insufficient work on the cases,
therefore many simple and administrative activities were transferred from the court
7
staff to judges to such an extent that they have become dominant over the actual
settlement of cases in the work of judges.
6. Financial work conditions
Financial and material dependence of judiciary on the executive and legislative
authority, unsolved court financing, constant insufficiency of funds for normal
operation of courts have caused inefficient and slow work and that directly increased
the number of unresolved cases. This specially affects payment of court experts and
court-appointed counsels often prolonging the proceedings.
7. Lack of information technology
Significant factor for generating unresolved cases was also a lack of information
technology in courts making it more difficult to adjudicate, at least, easier and type-
related cases, to use the existing samples of decisions, to efficiently and quickly use
case law. Also, hearings were recorded in a classic manner by dictating, decisions
were dictated, there were no printers, scanners, internet etc., therefore, the
performance of judges was made slower and contributed to the creation of the
backlog cases.
IV. DEFINITION OF A “BACKLOG OF UNRESOLVED CASESS” AND
CRITICAL POINT OF COURT TARDINESS
Given the existence of many procedural laws for all court categories and numerous
legal deadlines regarding the procedure for particular types of cases, it is necessary to
identify cases that belong to the backlog according to the category of cases having the
highest number of unresolved cases.
The Working group has already located the biggest concentration of unresolved cases
in the criminal, civil, administrative and enforcement category, but if some courts
have big number of such unresolved cases in other categories they should also
identify cases that are to be considered as a backlog and submit exact indicators and
reasons to the Standing Committee for Court Administration of the HJPC of BiH,
together with a plan for adjudicating such cases.
The Working group has given its opinion on critical point of tardiness according to
the categories of cases, therefore courts are to develop their own Plans on the
settlement of unresolved cases and categories. Namely, these would be the courts that
have the same or higher critical point than the critical point of the tardiness
determined by the Working group.
However, level of monthly court tardiness can be obtained by dividing all cases in a
category of cases (both old and new ones) with a number of cases monthly
adjudicated by a court with the existing number of judges for that respecting category
and the existing monthly quota for that category of cases. (An example: a court has
8
900 unresolved new and old criminal cases, there are two judges to settle the category
of cases with a quota of 15 cases per judge, or 30 cases in total per month, so that
would be an example of a 30-month tardiness for the category or 2,5 years of
tardiness for the court, i.e., that's the time needed by the two judges to settle all
unresolved cases, while during the time, any new case would become the unresolved
one).
It is evident from the previous example that the calculation refers to the current, i.e.,
relative tardiness of the court, while the real and absolute tardiness concerning the
unresolved cases could be calculated only if a number of future cases is added to the
current number of unresolved cases for the period for which the Plan and program is
to be developed (according to the indicators of monthly influx of the type of cases
during the past year), then a total number of cases is divided by a number of cases to
be adjudicted on a monthly basis with the existing number of judges for the
concerned category and according to the existing quota. Presuming that the monthly
influx of criminal cases is 10, it is evident that in the course of 2,5 years, the court
would have received 300 new cases, that would total up to 1200 therefore, it would be
a 40-month tardiness, which is a realistic status for the monitored and envisaged
period.
CRIMINAL CATEGORY OF CASES
A. First instance
Currently, there are cases being adjudicated in the first instance of criminal category
according to the previous Criminal Procedure Code and cases being adjudicated
according to the new CPC.
Since all indictments filed according to the previous CPC are legally effective and it's
been two years since the application of the new CPC, all pending cases falling under
the previous CPC should be considered as the backlog cases. This applies to the cases
resulting in overruled judgements and cases resulting in remanded judgements with
more recent numbers.
Having in mind deadlines of the new CPC relating to the confirmation of the
indictment and statement of guilty and non-guilty plea and scheduling of a main trial,
the main trial for criminal cases should be scheduled within 4 months from the
issuance date of the indictment. Given duration of the criminal procedure before our
courts and time to render a court decision, any criminal case in which main trial was
not completed in the course of a year from the day of reception of the indictment by
the court should be considered as the backlog cases.
Courts that have a year's backlog cases in the criminal category of cases should
develop immediately their own plans and programs for the settlement of unresolved
cases. Courts that do not have a year's backlog cases in the criminal category of cases,
but a bigger number of old and unresolved cases and cases related to the war crimes,
serious financial crime, organized crime, cases dealing with several victims etc.,
should also develop their own plans for settlement of such criminal cases.
9
B. Second instance:
Although the Criminal Procedure Code has not set forth any deadlines for the second
instance courts to decide appeals and requests for reopening of the proceeding,
respecting the provision of article 330 para. 4 of the CPC of the FBiH ( „Official
Gazette of the Federation of BiH“, number 35/03) and article 321 paragraph 4 of the
CPC of RS („Official Gazette of Republika Srpska“, no. 50/03), stating that the Panel
of the Appelate Division shall render a decision against the appeal, if the accused is in
custody, within three months from the day of reception of the documents, and
respecting the stances of the European Court of Human Rights related to the
reasonable time limit for deciding criminal cases, therefore, any case that has not
been decided within 6 months, from the day of reception of the appeal by the court,
shall be considered an unresolved second-instance, criminal case.
Those courts having a six-month tardiness should immediately develop their own
plans for adjudicating backlog cases of this category.
CIVIL CATEGORY OF CASES
A. First instance :
In view of deadlines stipulated by the new Civil Procedure Code (CPC) concerning
the time to respond to the complaint, scheduling of preparatory hearing , scheduling
of main trial, duration of main trial and time necessary to render a court decision, and
respecting average time for the completion of first instance civil cases which require
all possible procedural steps to be taken, any case that has not been settled within one
year from the date of reception of the complaint by a court, should be considered and
dealt with as a backlog case.
In the category of first instance civil cases and according to the legal definition, there
are „urgent“ cases (labour disputes, trespassing proceedings, enforcements, housing
disputes, family relations), so in terms of all legal deadlines for scheduling and
carrying out particular procedural steps of the proceeding, cases that have not been
adjudicated after a six-month period should be considered as the backlog case.
A number of a case file would not be referent for the determination of the backlog,
for the last file number does not give a real „age“ of the case, but the case „age“ is to
be determined according to the date of reception of the complaint by the court.
Therefore, the cases from 2005 would not be considered as new cases if a complaint
was filed some years back.
Courts with a12- month or a year backlog have to develop their own Plan and
program for the settlement of the backlog of the category.
Courts that have unresolved urgent cases in the category, have to develop their own
Plan and program for the settlement of backlog of urgent cases. Namely, in that case
10
the most efficient way would be for the court president to impose an order for the
settlement of such priority cases.
B. Second instance :
In accordance with the provision of article 217 of the CPC, the second instance court
shall be obliged to decide on an appeal within 45 days from the day of reception of
the appeal by the court, therefore, all cases for which appeals were filed before the
45th day would be considered as the backlog. Regardless of the well-foundness of
remarks concerning the short time of the deadline, it has to be respected according to
the principle of legality, so the working group agrees with the abovementioned
opinion that all second-instance cases which have not been completed within 45 days
from the day of reception of the appeals are considered as the backlog and that the
ultimate objective of the reform of civil judiciary is to complete the appealed cases
within the given deadline, while the cases marked as „urgent“ should be completed
within even shorter time period, i.e., immediately upon the receipt of the appeal.
Courts that have unresolved cases in the category, have to develop their own Plan
and program for the settlement of the backlog, while urgent cases have to be initiated
and adjudicated immediately as urgent cases.
B. Revisions and repeating of proceedings:
Even though the CPC does not have binding deadlines when deciding on filed
revisions and repeated proceedings, the Working group, respecting legal deadline
when deciding on the appeal against the first instance decision by the Appellate court,
is of the opinion that all cases of revision and repeated proceedings which have not
been completed within a six-month period from the day of the reception of the case
may be considered the backlog of the category of cases. Also, these courts having a
six-month backlog in the category of cases should develop their own Plan for the
settlement of the category of unresolved cases.
ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORY OF CASES
A. First instance :
The new Law on Administrative Disputes does not specify the deadline within which
the administrative dispute in the first instance would be completed, but having in
mind certain legal time periods related to the appeal response period, decision
rendering, tendencies of the reformed procedure of the administrative dispute to
significantly accelerate work at these cases etc., all cases of administrative disputes
which are not completed after a six-month period from the day of the reception of the
complaint may be considered as the backlog.
The courts which have a six-month backlog in the category of cases should
immediately develop their own Plans for the settlement of the backlog of unresolved
cases.
11
B. The second instance administrative cases and cases on extraordinary legal
remedies
According to the provisions of the new laws on administrative disputes it is specified
that cases, in which a regular or extraordinary legal remedy has been submitted until
such time as the new codes become effective, shall be handled by the Supreme courts
in accordance with the previous code, and bearing in mind that a time period within
which the cases should be settled has not been defined yet and a huge number of such
cases still exists, the working group is of opinion that all cases of administrative
disputes which are not completed in a six-month period from the day of the reception
of the complaint, may be considered as the backlog.
The courts which have a six-month backlog in the category of cases should
immediately develop their own Plans for the settlement of the backlog of unresolved
cases.
ENFORCEMENT CASES
Having in mind the provisions pertaining to article 5 of the Law on Enforcement
Procedure stipulating that the court, in the enforcement procedures, is obliged to act
urgently and to attend cases in accordance with the sequence of their reception, and
also having in mind the backlog of this type of unresolved cases in all our courts
(there are enormous backlogs of these categories of cases in some areas) and all
specific and numerous issues related to the direct and coercive enforcement , the
Working group is of opinion that any such case which exceeds one year from the date
of the reception of the motion may be considered as the backlog of an enforcement
case.
The courts having a 12-month backlog should immediately develop their own Plan
for the settlement of unresolved cases of this category.
III. PROPOSAL OF MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO
SETTLE THE BACKLOG OF UNRESOLVED CASES MORE
EFFICIENTLY
A. EXTERNAL MEASURES- legislative changes
CRIMINAL CODE
The institute of the „release from criminal prosecution“ for the
perpetrators of lenient criminal offences, who, during the pre-investigating
or investigating stage restitute the injured party that would not request any
12
criminal prosecution or sanctioning of the perpetrator, or makes a payment
into an account of a humanitarian organization (according to the existing
Slovenian model), is to be introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code. In
that way, a significant number of criminal cases would have been resolved
without opening any criminal proceeding;
restore the institute of replacing the punishment to imprisonment up to
three months with a fine;
Introduce the institute of setting the seal on different motions of the
prosecutor's office for issuing enforcement orders to search an apartment,
a person, to appropriate objects, documents, orders for banks, special
investigative actions etc., (the same as to set the seal on the indictment),
that would shorten the procedure significantly and release the proceeding
in cases of justified motions of prosecutor's office and release the court
from repeating the motion of the prosecutor's office;
Introduce the possibility to regularly deliver writs and submissions by a
fax or an e-mail to the addresses or numbers submitted to the court by
parties to the proceeding;
Release the courts in criminal procedure from any work related to the
court decision enforcement on expenses of the proceeding, collection of
fines by force, from imposing security measures for forfeiting and selling
objects; they should be transferred to the relevant attorney's offices;
Provide for the possibility to reach a plea bargain agreement during the
investigation or even during the pre-investigation stage (in case a
perpetrator is not willing to initiate the investigation at all),
Provide for the hearing on the plea bargain if the summoned prosecutor or
defense attorney of the accused fail to appear, but if the accused fails to
appear, even though he has been summoned, it would not be deemed the
admission of guilt (the accused may always withdraw his admission of
guilt or admit it whenever he wants during the proceeding),
Cancel the provision stipulating that the evidence must be presented again
in case of the postponement of the main trial for the period longer than 30
days or due to the change of a judge or president of the Panel and provide
for the possibility to read the evidence with the consent of the parties ;
Introduce an alteration in the first instance decision so to have a short
explanation concerning the determining facts and articles of substantive
law on the basis of which the court has rendered its decision as well as the
type and length of criminal sanction;
Request imposing a warning along with the motion for issuance of a
criminal order;
Envisage that a single judge deals with all criminal offences carrying
maximal punishment of imprisonment up to (ten)10 years ;
The abovementioned legal changes would certainly shorten the duration of a criminal
proceeding , accelerate it and made it more efficient that has been proved by a recent held
discussion regarding the necessary amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code.
13
These are some of the proposals differentiated by the working groups for the
implementation of the CPC and proposals from the various seminars aimed at fast and
efficient deciding on criminal cases.
CIVIL LAW
taking into consideration the fact that the courts spend great energy and time for
the service of the complaints, responses to complaints, counter-claims and
responses to counter-claims, a possibility should be considered to free the courts
from the current legal obligation and unnecessary burden after complaint being
verified in a court and to transfer them to a party, such as preliminary
investigation of the complaint, the service of the complaint, a response to the
complaint, counter-claims and a response to the counter-claims, as well as all
objections and submissions related to the complaint. According to this solution,
the plaintiff would, after having verified the complaint with the court, containing
everything that a complaint should contain, serve the defendant with the
complaint, and the defendant would give the plaintiff a response to the complaint
within the prescribed deadline, and the parties would in this correspondence
exchange the existing evidence and all possible pleadings;
to make provision for the complaint to be rejected in the case the plaintiff does
not provide the exact address of the defendant to the court;
taking into account the current large number of cases resolved through a
settlement or through “other ways”, and that a larger number of cases could be
resolved prior to the court proceedings (American experience), it is necessary to
establish that the parties are obliged, prior to filing request for scheduling
preparatory hearing, to go to the mediators in order to try to resolve the case either
fully or partly through the settlement;
it would be necessary to establish that the parties can not come before the court
without an agent who is a graduate lawyer, and who has passed the bar
examination, which would certainly contribute to more cost-effective and efficient
conduct of proceedings and, in addition, many plaintiffs would give up filing
numerous “chicanery” complaints and disputes if it was certain that they would
need to pay high cost of proceedings in case of failure of dispute;
to establish the obligation for the parties to exchange the existing evidence,
remarks related to some evidence, and similar prior to the preparatory hearing in
order for the court to determine in much more expedient and efficient manner
which evidence to present at the main hearing and to resolve possible objections
related to the conduct of the proceedings;
to determine that the first instance judgments contain short explanations in which
the court will refer only to the applicable substantive regulations the judgment
was based upon;
that the single judge adjudicates a case in the second instance, with the possibility
of establishing a panel in some more difficult and complex cases (as it has been
solved under the Law on Administrative Disputes);
following the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, to delete the possibility
of remanding the reversed judgments to the first instance courts, and to provide
for the obligation on the part of the second instance courts to resolve the same
cases after the reversal of the decision, with possible obligation of the first
14
instance courts to conduct, as required and upon the request of the second instance
court, necessary procedural actions in the field such as witnessing, expert
witnessing, and similar;
to introduce the possibility of delivering all the pleadings to the court and from
the court to the parties by e-mail, fax, and similar, to the addresses given to the
court as contact addresses by the parties themselves;
to introduce a mandatory audio recording of the preparatory and main hearings,
and taking of shortened records, and provide the parties with the recorded CD,
without an obligation of making the transcript of recorded material. This would
shorten the duration of these hearings by double and ensure full authenticity of all
statements and actions;
to regulate it under the law that all the utility service bills (electric energy, water,
gas, heating, garbage removal, telephones, RTV and similar) be sent directly to
the accounting offices of the firms or institutions that pay out monthly salaries to
the debtors, and that all debts be collected while calculating monthly salaries,
pensions or other revenues, which would certainly considerably reduce the
number of disputes related to this issue, being the most numerous court disputes.
With all the aforementioned legal changes, it is quite certain that the proceedings before
the courts would be considerably shorter, thus saving judges' time and expediting the
proceedings, being the end objective given the large number of backlog cases.
These are only some of the proposals differentiated until now at numerous seminars that
dealt with the issues of more expedient work and more efficient resolving of the civil
cases, shortening the civil procedure and making it more expedient.
RECEPTION OF TRAINEES AND JUDICIAL ASSOCIATES
To realise the idea accepted by the competent ministries of justice not to include trainees
and judicial associates in the number of administrative staff in proportion 1:3, i.e. 1:2,5 ,
and in reference with it immediately to make changes to the Book of Rules on
Systematization in the Courts and to receive in the courts 1 trainee per 5 judges, and 1
judicial associate per 3 judges, and to foresee a category of additional judicial associates
(for a definite period of time) in the courts that have a large number of backlog cases on
the type of cases on which the judicial associates can work independently and finish
certain types of cases in a specific (necessary) time period. To enable the courts to
receive equal number of trainees - volunteers to the number of trainees, as well as to
engage the interns - students of the final year of the School of Law.
At the same time, it is necessary to realise and start implementing the Plan and
Programme of Training of trainees and judicial associates through the competent
Training Centers in order to prepare this category of judicial officers and staff to perform
their duties in a better and good quality manner, thereby contributing to higher efficiency
of the courts.
INCREASE OF COURT FEES
15
Due to general assessment that the existing court fees are too low and that as such enable
filing a large number of chicanery and malicious complaints and unfounded complaints,
and as such they particularly enable filing the appeals only for the reason of getting in
time, which is particularly indicative and worrying in the small value disputes and in the
enforcement cases, being the most numerous cases in the structure of backlog cases,
regardless of the difficult material situation in the country. The existing court fees should
be increased many times, and it should be established that the cases will not be processed
until the fees are paid, i.e. to provide that the complaints will be rejected and the appeals
will not be filed to the higher instances if the required fees are not paid within the legally
prescribed deadline.
AFFIRMATION OF MEDIATION AND INSTITUTE OF NOTARY
To ensure that the most experienced former judges, attorneys and renowned lawyers,
persons of confidence to the parties be appointed mediators, persons with reputation in
the society, persons that possess proven knowledge in the field of civil law, and to create,
through increased promotional activities, the climate of trust in the mediators, to clarify
why resolving of disputes by means of mediation is faster, safer, more cost-effective, and
more successful than resolving of disputes through court proceedings, to establish that the
parties cannot appear before the court if they previously have not visited the mediator,
etc. It is necessary to undertake all available measures in order to stimulate the mediation
as much as possible, but not as the institution to which the court would send the parties
that did not wish to make settlement before the court, but as the institution the parties are
obliged to appear prior to scheduling preparatory hearing or main hearing.
To propose to the Bar Chambers in BiH to incorporate into their laws an ethical
obligation of attorneys as legal representatives, agents, and defense attorneys to try to
achieve conciliatory and agreed disposition of every dispute prior to entering the court
proceeding.
It is also of great importance for relieving the courts of a burden of a large number of jobs
of administrative nature, that the function of notary finally starts functioning (public
notary) that would take over a large number of the workload of the court, which would in
turn enable the courts to redistribute specific work related to court administration aimed
at relieving judges and court president of burden.
ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
To introduce into practice a simplified procedure of assignment of the cases from one
court with the backlog to another court without the backlog cases and without sufficient
number of cases, particularly the cases in which the place of trial is not important for
adjudication (where there is no on-the-spot-investigation, with smaller distance between
such courts), and for which there are already legal solutions and possibilities – upon the
approval of the corresponding higher court.
16
The Working Group is of opinion that the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the
European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
will not be violated by assigning the cases, since just and public hearing within
reasonable time before an independent, impartial tribunal established under law is also
insured in that way. The principle of "trial within reasonable period" is prevailing over
any other principle (such as the territorial jurisdiction). It would be perhaps desirable to
obtain the approval of the parties beforehand for assigning the cases to other territorial
and subject matter jurisdiction court.
INTRODUCTION OF “FLYING BRIGADE”
To regulate the establishment of one group of judges and staff to be assigned to those
courts that have the alarming number of backlog cases, for which there are already
solutions in the Law on the HJPC according to which judges can be assigned temporarily
to other courts as assistance. (the Dutch solution speaks of 2,500 civil cases being
resolved annually by such a “flying brigade” ).
Of course, such a solution should be thoroughly elaborated and all necessary conditions
should be created for the work of such team of judges (to find free judges and
administrative workers, to obtain their approval, to resolve the issue of transportation,
accommodation, finances and compensation, communication with the courts, etc.).
INTRODUCTION OF THE INSTITUTE OF MENTOR (ADVISOR )
To regulate under the Book of Rules on Internal Operations of the Courts that judges
mentors (advisors) be determined in all the district/cantonal courts who would be charged
with one or several basic/municipal courts and who would assist lower tier court judges
by giving pieces of advise, expert opinions and views, by direct insight into the concrete
case, and similar, and to whom the lower tier court judges can address for advise in
respect to concrete cases. The time spent in such activity will be acknowledged to the
judges mentors.
Within each and every court, and as required, presidents should determine judges mentors
from among the most experienced and best judges to assist younger and less experienced
judges by giving them pieces of advise and expert opinions in relation to some cases, and
time spent in such activities will be fully acknowledged to these judges.
In the aforementioned manner, the quality of work of judges would be considerably
improved, and the number of reversed and altered decisions would be reduced, and the
work on the cases would be more expedient, all this significantly contributing to the
reduction of backlog cases.
INTRODUCTION OF MANDATORY PERIODIC REVIEWS OF LOWER COURTS
BY HIGHER COURTS
17
To reaffirm under the Book of Rules on Internal Operations of the Courts the previous
practice of having periodical reviews of the work of the lower tier courts by the higher
tier courts and to make reports on the conducted reviews and observations of the higher
courts, and to give recommendations for removing the noticed failures in the work. When
dealing with such cases, the judges of the higher courts would organize discussion with
judges of lower courts to give them pieces of advice relating to the application of the
substantive law, to point at the views and legal solutions of the higher courts, and similar,
which would for sure contribute to better and faster disposition of backlog cases.
Of course, these reviews should be directed exclusively towards the professional part
related to the application of the laws and rules in the internal court operation, and they
must not affect the independence of judicial function nor independent adjudicating the
cases by the judges of the lower tier courts.
ADOPTION OF NEW BOOK OF RULES ON JUDICIAL QUOTAS
Since it is impossible to set and determine unique work tasks for judges of the whole
judiciary without passing certain work quotas, it is necessary urgently to finalize the job
of determining time quotas and measured cases which should as such bring to better
utilization of working time of judges and increase efficiency in the work of the judges
and courts.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF PROMOTION OF JUDGES
By establishing the system of promotion of judges on the basis of the principle of
monitoring the performance of judges in line with the corresponding parameters within
specific period of time, and on the basis of the recommendations of the court presidents
and the HJPC of BiH, to enable the judges to promote after some time spent in the
service, both in the profession and in material sense within one court and at the higher
instance courts, the judges would be for sure more stimulated to work better and to
process a larger number of cases, which would ultimately reflect on the increased number
of resolved backlog cases.
Moreover, it is a general assessment that a big omission has been made in the reform of
our judiciary by failing to introduce the system of promotion of judges, which has been
directly recommended by the Ministerial Committee of the Council of Europe and
Consultancy Council of the European Judges.
We had an opportunity recently to get acquainted with very positive effects and results of
the functioning of such a system in the Republic of Slovenia, the solutions of which could
be applied in our judiciary as well.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF INTRODUCTION OF THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE JUDICARY
18
To introduce automatisation of all court procedures through the programme of
introduction of the information technology, unified data base for all courts using both
horizontal and vertical principles, to introduce electronic registration of cases and file
cases, and electronic case management, to link data base of courts at all levels, to make
court practice of higher courts accessible to lower courts, to introduce the system of
electronic submission of pleadings, service of process, decisions, and documents in
communication with parties and among the parties themselves, courts of different levels,
use of the method of video-conference in various court procedures, to ensure top-quality
training for judges and staff in ICT and similar.
To consider the programme of possible introduction of the single Center for Information
(such as the Judicial and Prosecutorial Training Center) which would be developing a
legal information system for courts, and which would enable reviewing of all court
decisions of importance for the application of the law, court practice, review of laws, the
recent changes and amendments to the laws and by-laws, and which would conduct all
other jobs related to the proper and efficient use of the information technologies in the
work of the courts (including the prosecutor's offices as well).
RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF FINANSING OF THE COURTS
Since in many courts the important factor of growth of backlog cases is a permanent and
chronic lack of financial and material funds, it should be necessary urgently to realise the
project of common budget for the BiH judiciary, or at least for judiciary at the entity
level, to transfer the tasks related to determination of budget proposals, allocation of
funds, criteria for allocation of funds, control over the use of funds from numerous
assemblies and ministries of justice and finances to the HJPC of BiH, which should play
a role of coordinator in development of budget proposal for judiciary, as well as direct
contact with parliaments when the needs of the courts and judiciary are in question.
RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF PREMISES FOR THE WORK OF
COURTS
In many courts, an important limiting factor in the work is a lack of premises, more
concretely, lack of court offices, court-rooms, court registries, archives, some courts are
accommodated in completely unconditional buildings, which significantly affects both on
the performance of judges and staff, and the court as the whole. Through the present
projects of assessment of the state of court buildings and equipment of courts (USAID
and CARDS) it should be necessary to create optimal accommodation and working
conditions for the work of all the courts, which could be of great importance for the work
of courts on resolving the backlog cases.
INTRODUCTION OF JUDICIAL COLLECTIVE ANNUAL LEAVE
Obviously, in July and August, due to the fact that the parties, defense counsels and
plaintiffs, as well as judges and administrative staff of the courts, the courts actually stop
working because it is impossible to organize normal working process, it would be useful
19
to introduce the collective annual leave of all the employees in the courts in a specific
period of time (let's say from 15 July to 15 August) and the parties, private attorneys and
plaintiffs would, quite sure, adjust themselves to this term, and not to have the situation
as it had been so far that the judges and courts adjust themselves to the annual leaves of
the parties, which would ultimately have positive effect on the performance of the courts,
and resolution of the backlog cases as well.
TO CONSIDER SOME COMPLETELY NEW SOLUTIONS
Taking into account the principle that the court should not deal with matters in which
there is no dispute between two parties, and the fact that in many countries some types of
cases are being very successfully conducted by the administrative bodies or some other
specialized bodies, the Working Group is of opinion that, in order to unburden the courts
from non-judicial work, and after having conducted a comprehensive study and analysis,
strategy should be that courts be no longer involved in probate cases, a larger part of non-
litigation procedure (deprivation of and reinstating of legal capacity, keeping mentally ill
persons in medical institutions, proclaiming missing persons dead and supplying
evidence on death, permissions for entering into marriage, drafting and certifying
contents of documents, keeping the documents, annulment of documents), land-registry
office, different registries and enforcement cases which are currently the biggest problem
in the structure of unresolved cases, the cases that in their undisputed phases can be
successfully conducted by administrative bodies or specialized bodies such as public
enforcement officer (Swedish example).
B. INTERNAL MEASURES - being undertaken within each court
1. Freeing judges from administrative and simple jobs and their transfer to the non-
judicial staff of the court:
judicial associates and trainees may, with previous training and under specific
control of the judge, and together with their regular jobs, perform the control of
whether complaints are complete and duly made in civil and administrative
procedures, may return unduly complaints and other pleadings to the parties, may
develop more simple general decisions and more specific decisions under
instruction and control of the judge in all court proceedings (dismissal of
proceedings, rejection of complaints), develop minor offense and disciplinary
reports against responsible persons in administrative proceeding, may work on the
cases related to finality of judgments, on various analysis and reports instead of
the judge, work on so-called “type-related cases” and so on;
the typist should be engaged in delivery of indictments and complaint to the
defendant, delivery of complaints to response, should ask for payment of court
fees with warnings for non-payment of fees, look for case files, look for all
necessary data for file, work on urgencies, schedule hearings, submit case files
against the regular and extraordinary legal remedies, work on the finality of the
cases, update and should work on proper case file maintenance, and similar;
20
all records of finished and unfinished cases, statistical records related to the
performance of the judges, analysis of state of individual categories of the cases,
records on hearings held and sessions of the panels, correspondence with different
monitors of the work of the judges and court, ministries of justice, Ombudsmen,
various projects and similar tasks should be performed by the court secretary,
technical court secretary, head of registry office, or president of the court in
smaller courts;
judges should be completely freed from obligation to receive parties and any other
obligation related to the court administration (except his own journals) which has
to be transferred to the non-judicial court staff;
2. All courts (court presidents) are obliged to immediately determine the number of
backlog cases by type of cases, and to establish on which types of cases there is a
critical tardiness of the court, and to determine the following measures (if
applicable for that court) for overcoming the situation of tardiness of the court:
to list and classify the cases by type and structure, and real age of the cases, i.e.
date when the proceedings commenced, and to pass mandatory instruction
according to which the cases are to be processed in line with the real age of the
case, and not in line with the date of reception of the case in the court, i.e. in line
with the latest case file number;
immediately to list the cases that are under the legal provisions “urgent” cases:
trespassing, labour disputes, housing disputes, family disputes, enforcement, war
crimes, organized economic crime, and similar, and to give them immediately for
processing together with instruction that they are immediately to be finished
within minimal prescribed deadlines;
to list and determine so-called “type-related cases” which are not legally complex,
which are based on the same parties, on the same material regulations, on
identical complaints, and which can be well legally and professionally prepared
by the judge, and further work on these cases, to be monitored by the judge, can
be done by the judicial associates and trainees. The work on the type-related cases
should also be of urgent nature, since the effect of quick work by this type of
cases will be lost by elapse of time, and if it is allowed that this type of cases
become backlog cases;
to make reassignment of backlog cases in order to assign them uniformly to all
judges, i.e. to prevent concentration of these cases with one or several judges
who, certainly, cannot resolve them for some longer period of time regardless of
work and efforts invested in it;
to obligatorily introduce for newly-received cases a preliminary review of files by
the judge or head of department for the purpose of establishing the possibility of
rendering procedural decisions prior to dealing with the merits and any procedural
actions of the court (lack of competence, litispendence, res iudicata, statute of
limitations, amnesty, non-enforceability, lack of active or passive identity card,
the existence of a possibility of other legal protection, inadmissibility of
complaints, and so on);
to instruct and direct judges to insist, at the first meeting of the parties before the
court and during the whole proceedings, upon conciliatory and agreed manner of
21
resolving disputes in a suitable and discrete manner, with power of arguments and
logic, without prejudging the subject legal matter;
to maintain, improve, and to harmonize the practice of pronouncement of more
lenient penal sanctions for perpetrators who pleaded guilty;
to specialize judges only for the work on specific types of cases (damage
compensation, labour disputes, housing cases, family cases, criminal offenses
against the life and body, against public traffic, juveniles, property violations, tax,
customs, housing and administrative disputes, etc.);
to undertake measures for maximal use of working hours of judges and court staff
within the existing working hours of minimum 7 hours per day;
to respect and apply the provisions related to the sick leave, compensation during
sick leave, checking of grounds for sick leave, etc, to the maximum possible
extent;
in big courts with lack of working space, to introduce work in two shifts, work on
Saturdays and Sundays, the work outside the court building, and similar;
to introduce the practice of occasional work on non-working days in order to
review the cases, to update them and determine type-related cases, etc;
since each court has judges willing and able to work on cases over time with
appropriate pecuniary compensation, the presidents of the courts, after
questionnaire conducted with the judges on that topic (related to such work and
fair compensation for such work), should consider that possibility with the
competent ministries of justice, and if the agreement is reached to make plan of
work of the judges, assignment of additional cases to those judges, and similar;
A considerable number of backlog cases in each court could be resolved in the
following manner:
to increase the existing quota for a corresponding percentage for a shorter period
of time (not longer than one year) in order for judges to give their contribution to
resolving the cases in the most direct manner. ;
to hold regular monthly general meetings of all judges and judicial departments,
with emphasis on the work on backlog cases, to affirm judges who finished the
largest number of backlog cases, to present the results of work of all judges by
these cases in a transparent manner, and similar;
court presidents should prevent judges from presenting the cases being transferred
(often consciously and malevolently) within the court, from one department to
another, as finished cases (since they are actually not finished), and that the cases
in the second appellate instance can not be presented as finished "in other way"
except in cases of withdrawal of the appeal;
court presidents are obliged to check the situation with backlog cases on a
monthly basis and if they found that judge caused delay in work on the case, they
will undertake certain organizational or other measures, and court presidents are
to be entitled to determine the deadline for finishing certain procedural actions.
Court presidents are obliged to monitor and motivate all judges and other
administrative staff (by occasional surveying the files, asking for reports) and to
survey the situation with cases through monthly reports, and are obliged to give
instructions, orders, and to survey the files and similar in connection with backlog
cases;
22
after having transferred the more simple and routine works from the court
president to other administrative staff, court presidents are also to resolve backlog
cases within the existing quotas, thus directly taking part in resolving such cases
and giving personal example to other judges and non-judicial staff, and assist in
reducing the number of such cases;
judges who wish so should be given the opportunity to take cases and case files
outside the court to work on them over time, of course taking care of proper
security and keeping of all cases taken outside the court;
all judges are obliged to write the report to the court president related to each
backlog case which has not been finished within one year time, indicating the
reasons why the case has not been finished, and the timeline within which such
case should objectively been resolved;
consistently and without any exemption to use all available legal means during the
hearings (forcible bringing in, inflicting punishments upon the parties, and agents,
expert witnesses, and witnesses, concentration of evidence at one hearing, etc.) in
order to prevent any delays in proceedings by the parties, and not to accept new
evidence for which it can not be proven that they could have been presented for
objective reasons at the preparatory hearing, in the indictment, at the haring for
guilty plea, and similar, to exclude the witnesses whose testimony is of no
relevance for the case, to limit the number of witnesses to a reasonable number if
an excessive number of witnesses has been proposed, and this practice is to be
supported also by the second instance (appellate) courts;
if all planned and programmed measures for resolving the backlog cases within
specific evaluation deadline do not show positive results and moves ahead despite
the consistent application of passed plans and programmes, the court presidents
shall address the competent cantonal or entity governments and ministries of
justice with the request for approval of funds for reception of additional (reserve)
judges for a definite period of time, and along with the request they are obliged to
submit quality analysis of the situation with the backlog cases, and submit it to the
Appointment Panel of the HJPC of BiH.
If the competent government does not accept the proposal to insure funds for
additional judges, it is necessary to present the analysis of the situation to the
HJPC of BiH, which will consider whether the request to increase the number of
judges in a particular court is grounded or not.
all courts, i.e. court presidents, are obliged to make quarterly evaluation of
measures and activities from the Plan and Programme for Resolving the Backlog
Cases, and to make report containing the assessment of work of the courts and
performance of judges in that respect. The municipal/basic courts will send these
reports to the cantonal/district courts which will make summary report for the
territory of jurisdiction of their courts, and which will include the evaluation and
report of their own court as well, and will send the same summary report to the
Standing Committee for Court Administration of the HJPC of BiH, and the same
report will be sent to the Committee by the Supreme Courts of the Federation of
BiH and Republika Srpska, as well as by the Court of BiH.
23
V. THE WORK OF THE HJPC OF BIH ON MONITORING THE RESULTS
OF ACTIVITIES RELATED TO RESOLVING THE BACKLOG CASES
1. Standing Committee for Court Administration of the HJPC of BiH shall,
through quarterly reports monitor the work of the courts on the priority task of
resolving the backlog cases, and it shall regularly present reports to the HJPC of
BiH on the achieved results, as well as on the problems during the realization of
the plans and programmes, and it shall also give a review of the current situation
with backlog cases in the courts, and inform the Council on all important details
and moments related to this issue.
2. It is possible to expect that in some environments and courts there will be
anti-reform oriented judges as well as judges who tend to preserve already
acquired positions on the basis of use of current unobjective quotas, will show
resistance towards passed plans and programmes for resolving backlog cases,
and particularly towards the increase of quotas, specialization, reassignment of
cases and similar. The HJPC of BiH will give support to the presidents of such
courts, and initiate proceedings against such judges who would boycott passed
plans.
3. The HJPC of BiH should, taking into account the reports received from the
courts and the situation related to the backlog cases in some courts, indicate the
courts in BiH in which the situation with backlog cases is critical and alarming,
and perhaps it should establish the working groups for such courts to assist court
administration in passing the plans and programmes for resolving the backlog
cases, which would also give feedback information and proposals to the HJPC
for undertaking further and concrete measures in these courts.
4. Due to the current bad situation with backlog cases in a large number of
courts, this activity of monitoring the situation and results of measures for
reduction of the number of backlog cases in the courts should be permanent,
while the work and performance related to this issue should serve as special
parameter and the basis for evaluation of the performance of judges and court
presidents in this and future years.
5. In the case that some courts submit justifiable request to competent
governments and ministries of justice to insure funds for reception of additional
judges, it would be desirable that the HJPC of BiH also recommends the
governments and ministries of justice to take into consideration such proposals,
because it is evident that such proposals would be accepted easier if the
authority such as the HJPC of BiH stands behind them.
6. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the HJPC of BiH should, after having
received periodical reports from the Standing Committee for Court
Administration, include this issue on the agenda of its sessions, monitor the
situation, undertake necessary and efficient measures for consistent realization
of the plans and programme for resolving backlog cases in the courts of BiH
24
Sarajevo, 30 August 2005
No. VSTV-07-0872-07092005
President of the Working Group President of the VSTV of BiH
Mladen Jurišić Branko Perić
25
