HJPC and EU Clash Over Control of Judges’ and Prosecutors’ Assets

Former Doboj Commercial Court president Jovanka Jovanović and her husband Janko acquired 13 properties in Doboj, Herceg Novi and Belgrade, with a combined value of around BAM 720,000, an investigation by the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIN) revealed in 2022.

In addition, Janko opened a bank account in Credit Suisse, which at one point was worth about three million marks (cca. CHF 1.6 million). In an interview with CIN journalists, he said that he and his wife had earned a total of around BAM 2.3 million between 1998 and 2016, a figure that falls far short of explaining the scale of their savings and property investments.

After the investigation triggered widespread public attention, CIN called on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) to examine Judge Jovanović’s asset declarations and establish whether she had properly disclosed all of her own assets, as well as those belonging to her husband.

Yet, despite the expectation that the documented findings would prompt scrutiny from the HJPC, particularly given that Jovanović had held senior judicial positions in Doboj for 18 years, while her husband had previously been arrested, reported to authorities and subjected to disciplinary proceedings over his work in customs, the Council took no action.

Instead, the HJPC rejected CIN’s request, citing the need to protect the judge’s personal data.

This was how the system operated until 2025. Previously, judges and prosecutors were not obligated to file asset declarations or undergo verification of their assets. However, after sustained pressure and with financial backing from the European Union (EU), legal requirements for both declaration and verification have now been established. The EU views asset monitoring as a crucial measure in combating corruption and as a significant step in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s progress toward EU accession.

Problems, however, emerged almost immediately after the first results were published. The High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) amended part of its rulebook governing the selection of external experts responsible for overseeing the verification of submitted data. The EU didn’t like this unilateral move; hence, they threatened to stop funding for the HJPC, while also raising concerns that the dispute could undermine Bosnia and Herzegovina’s progress on its European path.

“This Council will never change positions that are based on principles and aimed at improving the quality of the system, regardless of who proposes, requests or demands otherwise,” HJPC President Sanin Bogunić told CIN.

Oversight the HJPC way

After several delays, blockages and disagreements, amendments to the Law on the HJPC finally introduced an obligation for judges and prosecutors to declare, at the beginning of their mandate and annually thereafter, their income, property, vehicles, savings, debts and other assets belonging to their spouses, common-law partners, children and parents.
Since 2025, these declarations have been reviewed by the newly established Asset Declarations Department within HJPC. Failure to comply with these legal obligations can result in disciplinary proceedings and financial penalties ranging from BAM 2,000 to BAM 10,000.

According to official figures, judges and prosecutors had submitted 1,546 asset declarations by the end of May 2026. The Department checks whether declarations have been submitted within the required deadlines, whether they have been properly completed, and whether reported financial inflows and outflows appear proportionate.

In addition to verifying compliance with deadlines and the accuracy of submitted forms, slightly more than one third of declarations have been selected for so-called third-level checks, a more detailed review involving comparisons with official records and information obtained from individuals and legal entities.

By the end of May this year, 132 additional reviews had been completed. These are the most significant checks carried out by the Department. They are conducted when a person is first appointed or promoted, on a randomly selected 10% sample of declarations, where reports are incomplete, where discrepancies are identified, or following a complaint. Other criteria for triggering additional checks remain confidential and are determined by the HJPC.

The work is currently being carried out by eight employees, although the Department is expected to have a total of 17 positions. Those posts could not be filled because funds were unavailable due to delays in adopting the state budget.

“Considering all the circumstances, the pace of these checks is something to be absolutely proud of,” Bogunić said.

The Department forwarded details of undeclared asset reports to the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), which imposed a 40% pay cut on three judges in separate disciplinary proceedings: Velibor Milićević, Dubravka Vidović and Amira Merdić.

At the same time, requests were sent to the courts to initiate misdemeanour proceedings against more than 20 former judges and prosecutors.

However, the first results of the new system have been overshadowed by a dispute between the HJPC and the European Commission, once again putting trust in judicial reforms under the spotlight.

The European Union (EU) financed the Department’s External Monitoring Programme on the condition that the verification process would be overseen by independent experts from outside the HJPC, approved by international partners, to ensure the process was as transparent as possible. But in April 2026, the HJPC unilaterally amended part of its rulebook without reaching an agreement with the European Commission, giving itself the final say over the selection of the monitors and reducing the EU’s role to representation on the selection committee. The amendments introduced a public call for applications, lowered the required professional experience to 10 years, removed the requirement for English-language proficiency and dropped the requirement that the monitors be “independent”.

“The decision to adopt these amendments was taken despite two separate letters sent by the European Commission to the HJPC, expressing concern that they would adversely affect the effectiveness, credibility and independence of the External Monitoring Programme,” the EU Delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina said.

As a result, the Delegation announced that it would suspend funding for the External Monitoring Programme and warned that this could also affect future EU funding for the HJPC.

Over the past four years, the EU has provided EUR 4.5 million under a project aimed at strengthening the rule of law and combating corruption. A further EUR 7.26 million will be made available once a functioning appellate judicial body is established at state level in line with the new Law on the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while another EUR 14.52 million is earmarked following the adoption and implementation of the new Law on the HJPC. The EU also provides additional support through programmes under the so-called Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA).

The HJPC’s move could put the disbursement of these funds at risk. The Council, however, rejects the criticism, arguing that the amendments were introduced to make the verification of judges’ and prosecutors’ assets more transparent and improve its quality.

HJPC President Sanin Bogunić says that opening the process to all qualified experts, setting clearer selection criteria and making the procedure more transparent should strengthen the system.

“How can the Council properly fulfil its legal obligation to engage external experts if it has no role in selecting and appointing them? The Council has chosen not to simply take people at their word, but to play an active role in the process, and, in doing so, to take responsibility for the experts it appoints,” Bogunić told CIN.

Checks shrouded in secrecy

Scrutinising the assets of judges and prosecutors is also a crucial issue for public confidence in the judiciary in Serbia and Montenegro.

Since 2010, judges and prosecutors in Serbia have been required to submit asset declarations, but checks are carried out according to an annual plan drawn up by the director of the Anti-Corruption Agency. That plan usually covers only a few hundred declarations.

Nemanja Nenadić of Transparency Serbia, an anti-corruption NGO, therefore believes the key question may be how those selected for more detailed scrutiny are chosen.

Little is known about the outcome of these checks, and even less about how they are carried out. The process is confidential, while only a small number of asset declarations are publicly available.

“That is why the sampling methodology must be based on a well-assessed risk model, while also allowing individuals to be subjected to scrutiny if suspicions of legal violations emerge at a later stage,” Nenadić said.

Asset declarations are also mandatory in Montenegro, where declarations are reviewed by the Anti-Corruption Agency, again based on an annual plan and not covering all public officials.  The process of verifying the submitted information is not open to the public.

Dejan Milovac, Deputy Executive Director of the non-governmental organisation MANS, which works to combat corruption and organised crime, says Montenegro’s experience shows that oversight cannot be reduced solely to cross-checking official records. Such an approach, he argues, will fail to uncover hidden assets, connected persons, sham transactions or the true source of funds, and will instead reveal only administrative errors.

Milovac believes external experts are essential because they provide a safeguard for professional and impartial scrutiny: “The verification of judges’ and prosecutors’ assets can only have credibility if it is institutionally and operationally independent from those whose assets are being examined. If the HJPC, as a body made up predominantly of judicial office-holders, is given a decisive role in selecting the experts who are supposed to oversee its work, a clear institutional conflict of interest arises.”

In 2019, after years of waiting for members of the judiciary to make information about their assets publicly available, the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIN) launched its own database. Despite strong resistance from judges and prosecutors, CIN journalists collected and compiled biographical details, information on income, property, vehicles, savings, loans, shares and court proceedings involving 29 judges and prosecutors.

The database has since been expanded and currently contains information on 58 individuals.