At the beginning of 2026, six disciplinary proceedings were initiated against judges and prosecutors for violating the obligation to submit asset and interest reports. The seventh case did not result in disciplinary proceedings because the judicial office holder retired in the meantime, after which misdemeanor proceedings were initiated. The outcomes of these first cases will demonstrate what practice will be established in the application of the reformed system for reporting and verifying the assets of judicial office holders.
The 2023 reform of the Law on the HJPC BiH regulated in detail for the first time the system for reporting, verifying, and publicly disclosing data on assets and interests, together with disciplinary and misdemeanor liability mechanisms in case of violations of these obligations. During the adoption of amendments to the Law on the HJPC, TI BiH emphasized the importance of clearly defined accountability mechanisms and consistent application of the new integrity provisions.
In this context, TI BiH analyzed the first concluded case concerning violation of the asset reporting obligation. Although this is an individual case, the manner in which the proceedings were concluded raised several important questions in practice, including the possibility of suspending disciplinary proceedings due to termination of mandate, the relationship between disciplinary and misdemeanor liability, the effectiveness of imposed sanctions, as well as the problem of transparency in the HJPC’s actions and the availability of information on imposed disciplinary measures.
What happened in the specific case
In the observed case, the first-instance disciplinary commission established the judge’s liability for violating the obligation to submit an asset and interest report, and imposed a disciplinary measure of salary reduction in the amount of 50% for a period of 12 months. The decision’s reasoning particularly emphasized that this was not an oversight due to negligence, but a conscious failure to fulfill a legal obligation, whereby the commission determined that the respondent “…was aware that a prohibited consequence could occur due to her action or inaction, but consented to its occurrence (eventual intent).”
An appeal was filed against this decision, but before the final decision was made, the judge’s mandate terminated due to meeting the conditions for retirement. The second-instance disciplinary commission suspended the proceedings under such circumstances, with the explanation that a person who no longer holds a judicial office is not subject to disciplinary liability on that basis. Thus, the proceedings were concluded without a legally binding disciplinary sanction, although disciplinary liability had been established by the first-instance decision.
This outcome is in accordance with the existing legal framework, given that disciplinary liability is linked to the performance of judicial functions. At the same time, the law provides for the possibility of initiating misdemeanor proceedings even after the termination of a judicial office holder’s mandate.
However, the difference between disciplinary and misdemeanor liability in such situations is not merely procedural. Disciplinary proceedings can result in sanctions that directly affect the status of the judicial office holder, including salary reduction, transfer, or removal from office. In contrast, when a person no longer holds a judicial office, liability through misdemeanor proceedings essentially comes down to financial consequences, without the possibility of affecting their status in the judiciary.
Such situations raise the question of whether the existing framework enables disciplinary proceedings to be legally concluded before the termination of mandate. Previous monitoring of disciplinary proceedings against judicial office holders has already shown that certain proceedings were suspended due to judicial office holders retiring before a final decision was made. This raises the question of what consequences such a framework could have in disciplinary cases where a judicial office holder could leave the judiciary before the conclusion of proceedings and continue professional engagement outside it.
Judicial Integrity and Public Trust
Additionally concerning is the fact that information on disciplinary sanctions in these cases is not available to the public. In response to a request for access to information, the HJPC BiH refused to provide anonymized first-instance decisions containing data on the type and level of imposed disciplinary measures in four disciplinary cases, with the explanation that second-instance proceedings are still ongoing and that disclosure of information could affect the independence and efficiency of the proceedings.
However, it remains unclear how the publication of anonymized decisions could jeopardize the course of proceedings, especially considering the significant public interest that exists regarding the accountability of judicial office holders and the application of new integrity provisions. At the same time, the response did not specifically explain the existence of concrete harm that would result from publishing the decisions, nor was a public interest test conducted.
Between Rules and Practice
These cases represent the first serious test of the reformed system for reporting and verifying the assets of judicial office holders. Current practice shows that the existing framework may lead to disciplinary proceedings being suspended before legally binding conclusion if the judicial office holder’s mandate terminates in the meantime.
Under such circumstances, it is particularly important that disciplinary proceedings be conducted efficiently and concluded before the termination of the judicial office holder’s mandate. Otherwise, a situation arises where disciplinary liability has been formally established, but the disciplinary measure can no longer be implemented due to termination of office.
