EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 6.10.2020 SWD(2020) 350 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Bosnia and Herzegovina 2020 Report Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions





2020 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy













{COM(2020) 660 final} - {SWD(2020) 351 final} - {SWD(2020) 352 final} - {SWD(2020) 353 final} - {SWD(2020) 354 final} - {SWD(2020) 355 final} - {SWD(2020) 356 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction 1.1.Context 1.2.Summary of the report 2.Fundamentals first: political criteria and rule of law chapters 2.1.Fundamentals first: Functioning of democratic institutions and Public Administration Reform 2.1.1.Democracy 2.1.2.Public administration reform 2.2.1.Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights15 2.2.2.Chapter 24: Justice, freedom and security34 3.Fundamentals first: economic development and competitiveness46 3.1.The existence of a functioning market economy47 4.Good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation56 5.Ability to assume obligations from membership58 5.1.Chapter 1: Free movement of goods58 5.2.Chapter 2: Freedom of movements for workers60 5.3.Chapter 3: Right of establishment and freedom to provide services61 5.4.Chapter 4: Free movement of capital62

5.5.Chapter 5: Public procurement63 5.6.Chapter 6: Company law65 5.7.Chapter 7: Intellectual property law66 5.8.Chapter 8: Competition policy67 5.9.Chapter 9: Financial services69 5.10.Chapter 10: Information society and media71 5.11.Chapter 11: Agriculture and rural development72 5.12.Chapter 12: Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy73 5.13.Chapter 13: Fisheries75 5.14.Chapter 14: Transport policy76 5.15.Chapter 15: Energy79 5.16.Chapter 16: Taxation82 5.17.Chapter 17: Economic and monetary policy83 5.18.Chapter 18: Statistics84 5.19.Chapter 19: Social policy and employment86 5.20.Chapter 20: Enterprise and industrial policy90 5.21.Chapter 21: Trans-European Networks92 5.22.Chapter 22: Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments94 5.25.Chapter 25: Science and research96 5.26.Chapter 26: Education and culture97

5.27.Chapter 27: Environment and climate change99 5.28.Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection103 5.29.Chapter 29: Customs union105 5.30.Chapter 30: External relations107 5.31.Chapter 31: Foreign, security and defence policy108 5.32.Chapter 32: Financial control110 5.33.Chapter 33: Financial and budgetary provisions113 Annex I – Relations between the EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina115



1.Introduction 1.1. Context In February 2016, the country applied for EU membership and in September 2016 the European Council invited the European Commission to submit its opinion on the merits of Bosnia and Herzegovina's application. In May 2019, the Commission adopted its Opinion and accompanying analytical report on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s EU membership application. The Opinion identifies 14 key priorities for Bosnia and Herzegovina to fulfil in order to be recommended for the opening of accession negotiations, in the areas of democracy / functionality, the rule of law, fundamental rights, and public administration reform. In its December 2019 conclusions, the EU Council welcomed the Opinion and invited the Commission to focus its annual reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with the one in 2020, on the implementation of the key priorities from the Opinion. Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to implement the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the meetings of the joint bodies under the agreement took place regularly, except for the parliamentary committee, which has yet to adopt its rules of procedures. The public political commitment of the authorities at all levels of government to the strategic goal of European integration remained to a large extent merely declarative and was not turned into concrete actions, as political leaders spent the reporting period engaging in party politics and unconstructive political disputes, which impeded the appointment of a new government until late 2019, 14 months after the October 2018 elections, and hindered its work afterwards. Some steps have been taken in the recent months, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, to address the key priorities from the Opinion. In October 2019, the Council of Ministers adopted an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations from the Commission’s 2019 analytical report, whose content was not fully agreed among all levels of government. The Constitutional Court repealed the provision on the death penalty in the Republika Srpska entity constitution, fulfilling part of key priority 10. Legislative amendments following a political agreement in June 2020 should allow holding local elections in Mostar in December for the first time since 2008, thus fulfilling part of key priority 1. In July 2020, all levels of government adopted the strategic framework on public administration reform, contributing to key priority 14. Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the revised National War Crimes Strategy in September 2020, contributing to key priority 5. Preparations are also ongoing to hold the joint parliamentary committee. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to move forward on the other key priorities too. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is a global shock that has not spared the Western Balkans. It represents an unprecedented burden on their health and social protection systems. The final extent of its footprint in terms of loss of human lives and damage to the economies is still difficult to assess, but early Commission estimates foresee a drop of between 4 and 6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the region. Thousands of citizens are at risk of losing their jobs, and temporary government support measures (unemployment benefits, deferrals/waivers to tax and social security contributions, etc.) have an important fiscal impact. While the EU is itself heavily affected by the pandemic, it has spared no time and effort to provide essential and unparalleled support to the Western Balkans. This includes financial support of more than EUR 3.3 billion for countries in the region to address the immediate health crisis and resulting humanitarian needs, as well as longer term and structural impact on their societies and economies. Given the European perspective of the Western Balkans, the EU is also treating the region as privileged partners by associating them with the Union’s mechanisms and instruments. These include the Health Security Committee, Joint Procurement Agreements, Union Civil Protection Mechanism, Solidarity Fund, consular assistance in repatriation or exemption from temporary EU export restrictions of medical equipment. These and other measures have provided immediate relief and are a clear message of the EU’s political commitment towards the region. In the initial response to the COVID-19 outbreak Bosnia and Herzegovina reacted promptly and closely followed global recommendations by introducing mitigation measures to prevent, slow down and control the transmission of the virus. The authorities also increased health system capacities and re-oriented health providers towards COVID-19 designated facilities. Despite the initial success of the health authorities to prevent and control the spread of the virus, early relaxation of the restrictive measures was followed by an epidemiological peak during the summer months. By all relevant parameters and benchmarks, the response of the health system was comparatively effective in curbing the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the country, however, coping with the later peak proved to be challenging. During the COVID-19 outbreak, health services were provided to all persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including migrants and asylum seekers, irrespective of citizenship or health insurance status. The COVID-19 crisis demanded a high level of coordination among all levels of government which proved challenging in practice. The established crisis management bodies acted in their respective jurisdictions, without countrywide harmonisation of decisions and actions. The fragmentation of the healthcare system compounded coordination difficulties, and formal strategic response plans were not developed. Restrictive measures were relaxed gradually and in a more harmonised manner throughout the country. Citizens’ compliance with the protective epidemiological measures remains limited.

It is of utmost importance that emergency measures taken during the crisis are not at the expense of fundamental principles and values and that such measures remain proportionate, time-bound and subject to democratic oversight. 1.2. Summary of the report Regarding the political criteria, during most of the reporting period the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina was blocked for political reasons, which resulted in a legislative backlog, and the Council of Ministers acted in caretaker function, pending the appointment of a new government, which only took place in December 2019, 14 months after the general elections. The Federation entity government is still in a caretaker function. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Constitution remains in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as per the Sejdić-Finci and related cases. No progress was made in improving the electoral framework in line with European standards and ensuring transparency of political party financing. Amendments adopted in July 2020 should allow holding local elections in Mostar for the first time since 2008. Preparations are also ongoing to hold the Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee, as well as develop and adopt a national programme for the adoption of the EU acquis. No progress was made in ensuring an enabling environment for civil society. Meaningful and systematic consultations with civil society remain to be ensured. Bosnia and Herzegovina is at an early stage with public administration reform (PAR) and there was no progress on ensuring a professional and depoliticised civil service and a coordinated countrywide approach to policy making. All levels of government adopted the strategic framework on public administration reform and now need to adopt the related action plan. A political body steering the coordination of public administration reform is not yet established. To guarantee a professional civil service, civil service procedures must be based on merit principles and free from political interference. Bosnia and Herzegovina is at an early stage/has some level of preparation in the area of judiciary. No progress was made in this area during the reporting period. No appropriate action was taken to address the findings of the Expert Report on Rule of Law issues. Integrity reforms have met resistance from within the judiciary. Evident signs of deterioration require urgent measures to strengthen the integrity and regain citizens’ trust in the judiciary, starting with a credible and rigorous system of verification of financial statements of judicial office holders. Obstructions to judicial reforms from political actors and from within the judiciary and the poor functioning of the judiciary undermine citizens’ enjoyment of rights and the fight against corruption and organised crime. Bosnia and Herzegovina is at an early stage/has some level of preparation in the prevention and fight against corruption and organised crime. No progress was made in addressing the Opinion key priorities and 2019 recommendations in this area, as well as the findings of the Expert Report on Rule of Law issues. Corruption remained widespread and is a serious concern, with all levels of government showing signs of political capture directly affecting the daily life of citizens. There are systemic shortcomings in the operational cooperation of law enforcement agencies and a very limited exchange of intelligence. The police is vulnerable to political interference. Financial investigations and asset seizures are largely ineffective. The contact point for cooperation with Europol is not yet operational. No steps were taken to establish cooperation with Eurojust. The country needs to improve its capacity and continue its efforts in the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. As regards fundamental rights, while the legislative and institutional framework is largely in place; a comprehensive strategic framework remains to be adopted. Some steps were made – notably, the Constitutional Court repealed the provision on the death penalty in the Republika Srpska entity constitution, and the first LGBTI Pride Parade took place peacefully in Sarajevo. Challenges remain on freedom of assembly, notably in the Republika Srpska entity. Significant reforms are needed to ensure that all citizens are able to exercise their political rights and to overcome the practice of ‘two schools under one roof’ and ensure inclusive and quality education for all. There was no progress on guaranteeing freedom of expression and of the media and the protection of journalists by ensuring the appropriate judicial follow-up to cases of threats and violence against journalists and media workers, and ensuring the financial sustainability of the public broadcasting system. The EU has provided considerable support to Bosnia and Herzegovina to manage migration. The EU urges Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities to urgently take all necessary measures to prevent a humanitarian crisis from unfolding. The EU also expects violations of the law to be duly investigated. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to ensure effective coordination, at all levels, of border management and migration management capacity, as well as the functioning of the asylum system. As regards the economic criteria, Bosnia and Herzegovina has made limited progress and is at an early stage of establishing a functioning market economy. The quality of economic governance suffered from delays in government formation and insufficient cooperation at entity and state levels, paralysing among others progress towards improving the business environment which is held back by significant weaknesses, including in market entry and exit procedures, the rule of law and supervisory and regulatory institutions. Economic growth benefitted from strong domestic demand, reflecting sizeable inflows of workers remittances and low inflation. The public sector remained oversized and inefficient. The financial sector remained stable and lending increased, while unemployment has declined, partly due to a substantial labour force outflow. However, the economic impact of COVID-19 led to a sharp drop in economic activity and a marked deterioration in the labour market. Bosnia and Herzegovina made limited progress, and remains at an early stage in terms of capacity to cope with the competitive pressure and market forces in the EU. The overall quality of education remained low, while measures to improve the transport and energy infrastructure have remained insufficient. The extent of structural adjustment has been limited, although there has been some diversification in the country’s trade structure. Bosnia and Herzegovina has continued to participate actively in regional cooperation and maintain good neighbourly relations. Progress on alignment with the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy has been made and should be further pursued. Bosnia and Herzegovina is overall at an early stage/has some level of preparation regarding its level of preparedness and ability to take on the obligations of EU membership and needs to significantly step up the process to align with the EU acquis and implement and enforce related legislation. Limited to no progress was made on the different EU acquis chapters during the reporting period. Particular attention should be paid to the areas of free movement of goods, right of establishment and freedom to provide services, information society and media, agriculture and rural development, fisheries, transport policy, energy, economic and monetary policy, statistics, social policy and employment, enterprise and industrial policy, regional policy and coordination of structural instruments, education and culture, consumer and health protection, and financial control. 2.Fundamentals first: political criteria and rule of law chapters 2.1. Fundamentals first: Functioning of democratic institutions and Public Administration Reform 2.1.1. Democracy The reporting period was marked by the stalemate in forming the state-level and Federation entity governments following the October 2018 elections. Although a political agreement had been found already in March 2019, Bosnia and Herzegovina remained with a caretaker government for 14 months until December 2019, while coalition partners remained embroiled in a longstanding dispute over the NATO integration of the country and over the control of the Sarajevo and Tuzla cantonal governments. A breakthrough was reached with international and EU facilitation. Nonetheless, the political environment remained polarised, with repeated calls from the Republika Srpska entity, in November 2019 and February 2020, to roll back reforms and to block State-level institution. The reshuffling of the Central Election Commission also further strained relations within the ruling coalition. The need for a coordinated response to the COVID-19 crisis helped to temporarily put political issues aside, but tensions persisted. The Federation entity remains to date with a caretaker government. In such a political atmosphere, little action has been taken by political actors to address the 14 key priorities of the Commission’s May 2019 Opinion and accompanying analytical report. On 28 April 2020, the Presidency tasked the Council of Ministers to present an action plan on the Opinion key priorities. A political agreement in June 2020, leading to legislative amendments in July, should allow for local elections to be finally held in Mostar on 20 December 2020. Elections Some progress was made towards addressing part of the Opinion key priority 1 on ensuring that elections are conducted in line with European standards by implementing the recommendations of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) and relevant Venice Commission recommendations, ensuring transparency of political party financing, and holding municipal elections in Mostar. Legislative amendments adopted in July 2020 should allow residents of Mostar to vote by the end of the year. No legislative steps were taken to implement the comprehensive set of recommendations issued by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and by the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). These recommendations address the transparency and overall integrity of the electoral process and the implementation of election results. Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have an action plan for this.

Due to the Parliament’s inaction following a decision of the Constitutional Court, local elections have not been held in Mostar since 2008. In October 2019 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) established in the Baralija case that there was discriminatory treatment of Mostar residents due to the State’s failure to enable the conduct of democratic elections. The ECtHR requested the country to amend its legislation within 6 months, also noting that the Constitutional Court has the power to set up interim arrangements if the Parliament fails to do so. A political agreement on 17 June 2020 was followed by the swift adoption of legislative amendments in July 2020. These developments paved the way for Central Electoral Commission to announce the holding of local elections on 20 December 2020 in Mostar. In March and May 2020, the House of Representatives decided on a different composition of the Central Election Commission. Court cases on the legality of the appointment process are pending. The decision of the Central Election Commission to postpone local elections from 4 October to 15 November 2020 due to lack of budget allocations was unsuccessfully challenged before both the Constitutional Court and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Parliament The Parliamentary Assembly was blocked for most of 2019 for political reasons, resulting in a heavy legislative backlog. Blockages continued in 2020 as well. The legislative assemblies in the country remain weak in relation to the executives, with little cooperation among them and weak capacities to ensure a harmonised alignment with the EU acquis. Legislation and practices on registration of political parties and on political party financing needs to be improved. Some progress was made in addressing the Opinion key priority 3 on ensuring the proper functioning of the Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee. The Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina was blocked for most of 2019 due to the political dispute surrounding the appointment of a new state-level Council of Ministers. This had heavy repercussions on the democratic functions of Parliament, with no progress in legislative work and lack of oversight of the executive. Following the political agreement on a new government, by early 2020 both houses of Parliament appointed their members to the standing committees and joint standing committees, enabling legislative work to get underway. The appointment of inter-parliamentary delegations was completed only in January 2020. After five years of stalemate, in July 2020 the Parliament adopted the proposal of rules of procedure of the Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee (SAPC). Such rules of procedure, which foresee two-thirds majority voting without ethnic rules, must now be confirmed at the next meeting of the joint body. The country needs to ensure the functioning of the SAPC. Political dialogue at parliamentary level is an obligation under the SAA. Despite legislation laying down a 40% gender quota for candidates, in the 2018-2022 term women account for 21% of the members of the House of Representatives (9 out of 42) and 20% of the members of the House of Peoples (3 out of 15). The rules of procedure requiring gender balance in the appointment of members of the collegiums and of delegations to international organisations are largely ignored. There are no measures to promote the political representation of disadvantaged groups of women. Citizens who do not declare themselves as Bosniaks, Croats or Serbs cannot be appointed to the state-level House of Peoples; since 2009 the ECtHR has established in its Sejdić-Finci case law that these restrictions are in breach of the Convention and its Protocols. Entity parliaments have been in regular operation since October 2018. Since May 2019, the Parliament of the Federation entity adopted 16 laws in urgent procedure out of 18 (89%). In the Republika Srpska entity, the National Assembly adopted in the reporting period, 34 laws in fast-track procedures out of 107 (36%), including the budget; such procedures are in principle reserved only for exceptional cases. There are no specific standing committees on oversight and control of the entity government. In June 2020 the entity assembly adopted new rules of procedure, aimed at improving the quality and speed of parliamentary work. The state-level parliament suspended their sessions from March to May 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic; the Federation entity introduced rules of procedure for online sessions. In the Republika Srpska entity, on 28 March the parliament declared a state of emergency, suspending parliamentary works and entrusting the entity President with the power to issue decrees with force of law in matters of entity competence. In this period, 19 decrees with force of law were adopted. The entity parliament terminated the state of emergency on 20 May and confirmed all adopted decrees on 23 May. The parliamentary forum on European integration did not hold any session in 2019, negatively affecting the coordination between members of sectoral committees. All legislative assemblies, including at cantonal level, need to significantly improve their cooperation, notably to ensure a harmonised countrywide alignment process based on a national programme for the adoption of the EU acquis. The capacities of legislative assemblies to align with the EU acquis should be significantly enhanced, if necessary by pooling resources countrywide. All assemblies should ensure that the legislation includes impact assessments and should step up the oversight of the governments, including by monitoring the implementation of legislation. The legislation on the registration of political parties needs to be harmonised across the country. Bosnia and Herzegovina has made no progress in ensuring transparency of campaign financing and in preventing misuse of public resources. The Central Election Commission’s audit department needs to strengthen its capacity to monitor compliance with the regulation on political party financing. The country needs to ensure appropriate legislative and institutional follow-up to the outstanding GRECO and OSCE/ODIHR recommendations on political party financing, including transparency of campaign costs and sanctions for breaches. Issues persist in relations to internal party democracy, which include a lack of democratic internal policies and structures. There are no women among the political party leaders, and few in other party leadership positions. Governance The State-level Council of Ministers acted in caretaker function for most of 2019. The appointment of new governments in the Federation entity and in two cantons remain pending. The executives have little capacities for coordination and policy planning, including on EU matters. This requires strengthening the Directorate for European Integration, and making full use of the coordination mechanism. No progress was made in addressing the Opinion key priority 2 on developing and adopting a national programme for the adoption of the EU acquis (NPAA), reflecting the role of all levels of government in aligning with the EU acquis. The composition of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina remains in violation of the ECHR and its Protocols, as established since 2009 in the ECtHR Sejdić-Finci case-law. The lack of consensus among members of the Presidency led to long delays in the appointment of the new government. Presidency decisions taken by a majority faced ‘vital interest’ vetoes, supported by the Republika Srpska entity parliament, and were invalidated in July 2019, February and July 2020. Despite disagreements, the Presidency managed to act coherently to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak. On 28 April, ahead of the Zagreb Summit, the Presidency adopted conclusions aimed at starting to address the Opinion key priorities, including by tasking the Council of Ministers to develop an action plan on the 14 key priorities and a methodology for the program of EU integration (NPAA). The Council of Ministers continued to work in a caretaker function for the whole 2019, often only via telephone sessions. A new Council of Ministers was not appointed until 23 December 2019, 14 months after the general elections. The last ministerial appointments took place in July 2020. As in its previous composition, the new government includes 2 women among the 9 ministers (22%), with responsibility for foreign affairs and for civil affairs. The Council of Ministers acted swiftly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including by declaring a state of natural or other disaster in the whole country on 17 March and activating the coordination body for protection and rescue. The Council of Ministers continued to meet regularly and with growing intensity across the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. As regards the EU integration agenda, in October 2019 the Council of Ministers adopted the 2018-2021 medium-term development strategy, as well as an action plan for implementing the recommendations from the Commission’s 2019 analytical report. The content of the action plan was not fully agreed among all levels of government. The governments of the Republika Srpska entity and of most cantons worked regularly in the reporting period. The government of the Republika Srpska entity declared a situation of emergency on 16 March, which remains in force, and a state of emergency, from 3 April till 20 May. The governments of the Federation entity and of the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton and Canton 10 acted in a caretaker mandate throughout 2019 and 2020, pursuing a less ambitious agenda, as new executives have not been appointed since the election. The Federation government declared a state of disaster from 16 March till 29 May. In 2019, the Sarajevo Canton government introduced ambitious anticorruption and transparency measures, restructuring public companies and addressing infrastructural and environmental challenges in the canton. Following a shift in alliances connected with the formation of the state-level coalition, a no-confidence motion was adopted in January 2020 and a new cantonal government took office on 3 March 2020.

The Constitutional Court of the Federation entity operates with only 5 judges out of 9; this seriously impairs its decision-making, which requires a quorum of five. Its panel on ‘vital national interest’ vetoes is not able to function with only 3 judges out of the 7 required. The entity Presidency and Parliament should swiftly proceed to fill the judicial vacancies. The entity and state governments adopted in October 2019 and January 2020 respectively a document outlining a socio-economic reform programme for 2019-2022. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to develop and implement a common action plan of socio-economic reforms in line with the key short-term recommendations from the Commission Opinion and analytical report and with the joint conclusions of the economic and financial dialogue. Coordination among executives at all levels has to be ensured when formulating and implementing this package of socio-economic reforms. The participation of women in the executives across the country stands at around 20%, with the Republika Srpska entity scoring the highest with 6 women out of 16 ministers (37.5%) and Herzegovina-Neretva Canton the lowest with no women among the ministers. The capacities of governments at all levels to ensure coordination and policy planning are insufficient. Coordination on EU matters needs to be strengthened in order to efficiently deal with increasing EU requirements. This calls for strengthening both the role and capacities of the Directorate for European Integration, and making full use of the coordination mechanism for the tasks required. As a key priority and outstanding obligation under the SAA, Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to develop a national programme for the adoption of the acquis (NPAA) that reflects the role different levels of government play in aligning with and enforcing the EU acquis. SAA obligations and other EU requirements need to be duly included in the NPAA and in the corresponding annual work programmes of all levels of government. The Republika Srpska entity has a 2017-2021 strategy for developing local self-government, while there is no such strategy at the state level or in the Federation entity. Civil society The overall legal and regulatory framework for civil society in Bosnia and Herzegovina is broadly in line with the EU acquis. No progress was made in addressing the Opinion key priority 11 on ensuring an enabling environment for civil society, notably by upholding European standards on freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Challenges remain, as exemplified in the case of the “Justice for David” movement in Banja Luka. Meaningful and systematic consultations with civil society remain to be ensured as part of an inclusive policy dialogue. A framework for the transparent funding of civil society organisations is needed. An empowered civil society is a crucial component of any democratic system and should be recognised and treated as such by state institutions. The legislation on freedom of association is broadly in line with standards and generally upheld. However, activists dealing with sensitive issues have been subject to threats, verbal abuse and physical attacks. The distribution of public funds is not fully transparent and impartial. Only a few municipalities have regulations for the transparent funding of civil society organisations that are based on clearly defined criteria and require monitoring and evaluation tools. A framework for the transparent funding of civil society is needed across the country. The legislation on freedom of peaceful assembly needs to be harmonised across the country and aligned with European standards, in particular as regards grounds for restriction and the responsibility of organisers. Civil society organisations have reported increasing attempts to restrict freedom of assembly, in particular in relation to the ‘Justice for David’ movement in Banja Luka, whose activists have been subject to intimidation, fines, and judicial prosecution. The Sarajevo Pride parade organisers also reported facing with several additional burdens, including extra costs for additional security requirements. Legislation on public consultations is uneven across the country and there is no strategic framework for cooperation with civil society. Meaningful and systematic consultations remain to be ensured. The Council of Ministers needs to enact the 2017 charter on cooperation with civil society organisations, notably by developing regular cooperation and consultations. Civilian oversight of the security forces The Parliamentary Assembly and its committees have a key role in the oversight of the country’s security forces. Due to the parliamentary blockade, the joint committees on defence and security and on the security and intelligence agency were not formed and did not hold any session in 2019; the committees held their first session only in January 2020. The Military Commissioner, who oversees the protection of the human rights and freedoms of soldiers and personnel of the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence, conducted 92 proceedings in 2019, of which 8 are pending.

2.1.2. Public administration reform Bosnia and Herzegovina is at an early stage with public administration reform. There was limited progress in the reporting period in addressing the Opinion key priority 14 on completing essential steps in public administration reform towards improving the overall functioning of the public administration by ensuring a professional and depoliticised civil service and a coordinated countrywide approach to policy making. The strategic framework on public administration reform was adopted by the government of the Republika Srpska entity, two years after other governments did so. The State government and the Republika Srpska entity have established working groups to develop strategies on public financial management for 2021-2025. However, stronger political commitment, sufficient financial resources and more efficient coordination structures are needed to ensure a comprehensive and harmonised approach to public administration reforms. A political body steering the coordination of public administration reform is not yet established. To guarantee a professional civil service, civil service procedures must be based on merit principles and free from political interference. In the coming year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should in particular: ®adopt action plan for public administration reform and strategic framework for public financial management, establish a common performance-based monitoring framework and ensure financial sustainability; ®establish a political decision-making body to steer coordination of public administration reforms across all government levels; ®amend civil service laws to ensure respect of the merit principle at all levels of government and strengthen the capacities of civil service agencies to improve human resource management and trainings Strategic framework for public administration reform In June 2020 the government of the Republika Srpska entity also adopted the countrywide strategic framework on public administration reform (PAR SF) 2018-2022, two years after the State and Federation entity governments had done so. The related action plan has been developed with participation of PAR Coordinators at state and entities levels and remains to be adopted together with a coordinated monitoring and reporting system and related indicators passport. Insufficient political support hinders the coordinated implementation of reforms by all levels of government. Due to the lack of political ownership, budgetary resources for implementing reforms are insufficient. Financial sustainability is not ensured, and reforms are mostly donor-driven. The PAR Fund, an instrument to pool donor assistance and local funding, is not operational since 2017, preventing coordinated assistance across the country. The country has yet to demonstrate political commitment to public administration reform by establishing a political decision-making body to steer and coordinate reforms across all levels of government, strengthen the existing coordination structures at technical level, and ensure sufficient funding for the reform efforts.

Policy development and coordination The policy-making system in Bosnia and Herzegovina remains fragmented. The legislative framework on medium-term policy planning is incomplete and uneven. The Federation entity adopted a set of bylaws regulating annual, three-year and strategic planning. Otherwise, there has been no progress in developing harmonised legal provisions or methodological guidance for countrywide strategic planning. There is still no harmonisation between central planning documents such as the medium-term and annual government programme, framework budget document and action plan for implementation of priorities and no harmonisation of such documents with the sector strategies. Quality review remains insufficient. The legal framework for inclusive and evidence-based policy development is incomplete and not consistently implemented. The Republika Srpska entity simplified procedures on the regulatory impact assessment for law-making. The impact and quality of the analysis supporting policy proposals needs to be improved across all levels. The financial implications are not systemically calculated, and the collection and use of administrative data for policy-making are not ensured. The legal framework on public consultations needs to be improved and applied consistently. The legislative framework does not fully establish standards for monitoring and reporting on key government planning documents at each level of government, thus preventing public scrutiny over government work. Beyond legislative measures, more efforts are needed to raise awareness on various forms of consultation with the public. It remains key to strengthen technical capacities at all levels of government on how to regularly use public consultations as a tool of policy-making. Public financial management A country-wide public financial management (PFM) reform strategy has yet to be developed and adopted to ensure a common reform direction on PFM. The Republika Srpska entity continue to lack a PFM strategy, whereas all other levels have continued to implement reforms on PFM strategies that come to an end in 2020. However, in light of the COVID-19 crisis and the need to maintain functioning PFM systems, all levels of government have embarked on a process of developing new PFM strategies until 2025 by establishing working groups; the Federation needs to establish the same working group. The challenge continues to be that PFM reform programmes at various levels of government need to be further aligned with international standards on budget formulation and execution procedures, monitoring, transparency of budget data and forecasting. Public institutions at all levels have insufficient internal audit capacity and inadequate internal controls, especially for public procurement. Reform efforts need to target the substantial payment arrears of the public sector, in particular in the health sector, and target the management of publicly-owned enterprises in order to increase transparency, fiscal sustainability and efficiency in the sector. The management of public investments needs further upgrading. (See also Chapter 5 and Chapter 32). Bosnia and Herzegovina has not yet achieved sufficient budget transparency. Annual budgets and reports on budget implementation are only published by state-level institutions. The lack of harmonisation of the charts of accounts at state and entity level hampers access to consolidated data. In-year reporting still has to be improved at all levels. Available budgetary information remains incomplete, and assessing the overall budgetary and fiscal policy is difficult. There is no citizens’ budget at any level of government and budget calendars remain to be adopted Public service and human resources management Ensuring a non-politicised, merit-based and professional civil service remains a major challenge. The Republika Srpska entity and Brčko District made no progress in adopting the common policy framework on civil service. Different working conditions embedded in the legislation as well as divergent practices across levels of government (notably in respect of selection and recruitment, scope of the civil service, transfers and promotions requirements, appraisals and disciplinary procedures) could hamper the mobility of civil servants. All levels of government lack a coordinated approach to human resource management and civil service legislation. In particular, the Federation entity and cantons need to closely coordinate the institutional set-up of the civil service. The appointment of PAR coordinators in the cantons at the end of 2019 was a positive step towards improved coordination within the Federation entity. Political influence in recruitment and promotion procedures persists systematically across all levels, with lack of transparency in the appointment of selection committees. Candidates continue to be selected without applying merit principles and heads of institutions continue to use great discretion in final appointments. All civil service laws and recruitment practices have yet to ensure that ethnic criteria do not prevail over merit. The criteria for dismissals and disciplinary procedures are still insufficiently used, including the possibility to appeal. Human resources management (HRM) remains highly fragmented. Civil service agencies and training units do not coordinate appropriately. A general lack of data and inconsistent methodologies prevent comparison of performance on HRM practices across government levels. Monitoring of human resource management is not done consistently across levels of government and civil service agencies do not make those data transparent to the public. No progress has been made in establishing functional HRM information systems (HRMIS) across all levels of government. The State level needs to adopt a legal basis to render HRMIS functional for civil service; the Federation entity has done so in July 2020; for the same aim, the Republika Srpska entity needs to clarify the responsibilities on HRMIS between institutions in charge of public administration and the civil service agency. The administrative capacities and coordination of civil service agencies and integrated training units need to be strengthened. The remuneration system for civil servants remains inconsistent across public institutions and continues to lack transparency, also due to differences across the country in salary legislation, job classification, and pay grades. Insufficient resources are provided to civil service agencies for training and professional development. The performance appraisal system is formally in place but not used systematically to justify promotions. A new rulebook on performance appraisal of the civil servants in the Federation entity has introduced the use of behavioural competencies and defined objectives as separate criteria for assessing the performance. There was no progress in establishing a coherent system for fair performance appraisal, promotion and training as a right of a civil servant. Different recruitment and promotion requirements and practices hamper the mobility of civil servants. There are no systemic, consolidated data on the integrity of civil servants. Public perception of corruption of public officials remains high. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, civil service agencies temporary suspended and postponed all recruitment procedures in the civil service, whilst training activities were undertaken online, where appropriate. Accountability of administration No progress was made in specifying in the legislation the different functions of administrative bodies, or the conditions for establishing, merging or abolishing them. This leaves excessive discretion to restructure the administration without consideration of the rationale and cost-effectiveness of changes. Clear supervision and reporting lines between ministries and subordinated institutions are still lacking. The political level does not sufficiently delegate decision-making responsibility to senior civil servants or to middle management. (Also see Chapter 32) The recommendations of oversight mechanisms (Parliaments, the State Audit Institution and the Human Rights Ombudsman) are rarely implemented. This compromises the citizens’ right to good administration. Several institutions do not even respond to the recommendations addressed to them, although they are legally obliged to do so. (Also see Chapter 23) The right to access public information remains uneven due to shortcomings in statutory deadlines for replying to public information requests, an incoherent system to submit requests, incompleteness of the information provided by the authorities, hardly accessible information to the public and the poor use of a comprehensive public interest test to justify a refusal to grant access to information. Legal provisions on data protection and on access to information are still interpreted in a way that protects private rather than public interests. There is a lack of effective institutional mechanisms for supervising implementation of the laws or sanctioning violations. (Also see Chapter 23) The citizens’ right to administrative justice remains uneven due to the differences in efficiency of courts across the country. There are no effective remedies against the excessive length of judicial proceedings. Though applicants may file a case with the Constitutional Court, this measure does not ensure acceleration of the pending proceedings. (Also see Chapter 23) There is no systemic collection of data on the citizens’ right to seek compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions or omissions of the public administration. Service delivery to citizens and businesses The legal framework for a user-oriented administration varies substantially across the country. The adoption of a new law on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in compliance with the EU acquis is still pending. In October 2019, the Office for the Supervision and Accreditation of Certifiers, established within the Ministry of Communication and Transport, registered the first trust service provider, paving the way for the introduction of qualified electronic signature in the country. To foster a user-oriented administration, the country has to ensure a harmonised approach to the modernisation, simplification and digitalisation of services. Special administrative procedures still need to be reviewed and either abolished or brought in line with the laws on general administrative procedure. Different levels of authority decided to suspend time limits in administrative procedures and disputes, except in urgent cases, for the duration of the state of disaster or emergency. The delivery of public services was adjusted to the specific measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Bosnia and Herzegovina should simplify and harmonise business registration procedures and ensure full mutual recognition between entities, including on concessions and licensing. No one-stop-shop exists for either citizens or businesses, except in the Republika Srpska entity. Systematic monitoring of user satisfaction with service delivery does not occur at any level.

2.2.1. Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights Bosnia and Herzegovina has some level of preparation to implement the EU acquis and European standards in the area of judiciary and fundamental rights. No progress was made during the reporting period. Obstruction of justice reform by political actors and from within the judiciary, and the poor functioning of the judicial system continued to undermine the citizens’ enjoyment of rights and the fight against corruption and organised crime. The authorities and the judiciary have not taken action to address the findings of the Expert Report on Rule of Law issues. Corruption is widespread and the fight against it has not advanced. As regards fundamental rights, the provision on the death penalty in the constitution of the Republika Srpska entity was declared unconstitutional. The first LGBTI Pride Parade was held in Sarajevo. Functioning of the judiciary Bosnia and Herzegovina is at an early stage/has some level of preparation in the area of the judiciary. No progress was made in addressing the Opinion key priority 6. Two out of three of the 2019 recommendations remain outstanding. The authorities and the judiciary have not taken appropriate action to address the findings of the Expert Report on Rule of Law (“Priebe report”) issues. Reforms have also met resistance from within the judiciary, in particular with regard to declaration and verification of assets of judicial office holders and evaluation of judges and prosecutors. Evident signs of deterioration require urgent measures to strengthen the integrity and regain citizens’ trust in the judiciary, starting with a credible and rigorous system of verification of assets of judicial office holders. Obstruction to justice reform from political actors and from within the judiciary, and the poor functioning of the judicial system continued to undermine the citizens’ enjoyment of rights and the fight against corruption and organised crime. In the coming year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should in particular: ®adopt the new law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council and the new law on the Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in line with European standards; ®establish urgently a credible and rigorous system of verification of asset declarations of judges and prosecutors, and members of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council; ®apply consistently and significantly improve rules and practices on the appointment, integrity and training of judges and prosecutors; ensure that a system of performance appraisal is in place; ®effectively implement the revised National War Crimes Strategy and put in place a new Justice Sector Reform Strategy. Strategic documents The countrywide 2014-2018 justice sector reform strategy and its action plan are outdated and implementation is significantly behind schedule. It has had almost no impact on reforms. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to step up the strategy’s implementation, notably by establishing an updated timeline and by ensuring adequate monitoring and funding. At the same time, decisive action must be taken to draft and adopt a new strategy and action plan without further delay. Legal and institutional framework The legal and institutional framework has significant shortcomings. As an Opinion key priority, the country needs to adopt the new Law on Courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to achieve greater legal certainty and improve the functioning of the judiciary, notably in the fight against serious crime. The law should clarify the courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction for particularly serious crimes in line with the standards set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This law should also provide for a separate second-instance appellate court to strengthen the independence of the judicial review of the decisions of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Judicial self-governance body In the reporting period, numerous shortcomings have become evident in the independence, accountability and efficiency of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC), which have further significantly deteriorated trust in the judiciary. Corruption allegations against the HJPC President have not been properly investigated. In addition, the President did not distance himself from political interference from other branches of government and took part in high-level political meetings. This significantly undermines the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and how it is perceived by the public. The HJPC did not take adequate follow-up action in these cases, including of disciplinary nature, which remains a matter of serious concern. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HJPC failed to promptly ensure the continuity of its own activities. It held its first online session only on 30 April. The HJPC sent to relevant executive and legislative authorities guidance relative to the functioning of the judiciary on 22 March 2020, which were implemented through adoption of legislative acts at the level of entities and Brčko District, but not at the state level. The monitoring of gradual liberalisation of COVID-19 measures is ongoing, with a view to establish further needs for assistance to the entire judiciary. The HJPC should monitor the implementation of COVID-19-related measures, including its end of April decision on gradual liberalisation measures, to ensure continuous administration of justice. As an Opinion key priority, Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to adopt the new Law on the HJPC on the basis of the 2018 legislative initiative to strengthen the independence and accountability of the HJPC as a guarantor of the independence of the judiciary. This law should align with European Standards the HJPC’s composition, the election and disciplinary responsibility of its members, as well as reform the appointment, promotion, performance appraisal, disciplinary responsibility, conflict of interests and integrity of judicial office holders, and establish a judicial remedy against all HJPC’s final decisions. These issues need to be addressed in the light of the European Commission’s recommendations and the findings of the Expert Report on the Rule of Law issues. The final draft law should be submitted to the Venice Commission for an opinion, before adoption. Independence and impartiality No measure was taken in 2019 to improve the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which needs to be significantly strengthened in line with European standards, including through additional constitutional and legal safeguards. Lack of impartiality and conflicts of interest continued to be displayed by courts, in particular at the state level. The rules on the appointment, promotion, career advancement, conflict of interests and disciplinary responsibility of judges and prosecutors do not sufficiently safeguard their independence. In particular, appointments and career advancement are not sufficiently based on merit. The practice of deviating from the order in which the candidates have been ranked during appointment procedures, notably in the case of managerial positions, continued to be the rule rather than the exception during the reporting period, and is therefore a matter of serious concern. Efforts are also needed to make judicial appointment procedures more transparent. Appointment decisions need to be more thoroughly motivated, according to predetermined criteria. Multiple ad-hoc appointment procedures make the system vulnerable. Access to the judicial and prosecutorial profession should be managed though the organisation of a single annual examination. In addition, first access to the judicial or prosecutorial profession should be conditional on completing a specialised preparatory programme for candidates, in line with the findings of the Expert Report on the Rule of Law issues. Judges and prosecutors throughout the country need to be independent and impartial, and perceived as such. The new Law on HJPC should be urgently finalised and adopted to address these shortcomings.

The application of regulatory safeguards aiming to ensure impartiality is not consistent, notably for conflict of interests. There are no sufficient security features to prevent abuse of the random case allocation provided for by the case management system, especially in small courts, where reassignments without a specific justification are possible. Judges and prosecutors remain subject to internal and external pressure, including politically motivated threats and intimidation. Such practices need to be forcefully addressed. Dedicated sanctions for undue influence of the judicial office holders or public comments that would undermine their independence are not available. Undue influence may lead to disciplinary or criminal sanctions only in very specific cases. There are no established procedures carrying penalties against undue influence or threats to judicial independence. The existing reporting mechanism at the level of the HJPC, which may result only in an opinion on the reported cases of undue influence, is neither sufficient nor effective. The citizens’ and business world’s perception of judicial independence significantly worsened during the reporting period. Accountability There is no effective and transparent system for the submission, verification and processing of the asset declarations of judges, prosecutors, and members of the HJPC. This seriously affects the integrity of the judiciary. All courts and prosecutors’ offices have integrity plans, however their implementation is uneven. The process for recruiting judges and prosecutors does not include any thorough integrity and assets verification or any assessment of the candidates’ ethical and moral standards. Integrity reforms initiated by the HJPC have met resistance from within the judiciary, in particular with regard to the declaration and verification of assets of judicial office holders. This is worrying. In January 2020, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has annulled the HJPC rulebook on verification of asset declarations of judicial office holders. This decision seriously undermines the integrity objectives of the justice reform and raises impartiality questions. The lack of a separate second instance jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina further aggravates the issue. Decisive action must be taken to regain citizens’ trust in the judiciary, starting with a set of indispensable integrity-related amendments to the current Law on HJPC. These amendments should be urgently adopted by the legislator, to establish a credible and rigorous system of verification of asset declarations of judges and prosecutors, and members of the HJPC. A functionally and financially independent structure within the HJPC Secretariat should be entrusted with the verification of asset declarations. To alleviate concerns about potential abuse and manipulations, greater transparency must be ensured through publication of asset declarations and close external monitoring. The asset declarations of management positions, in particular of the president and members of the HJPC, the court presidents and chief prosecutors, must be submitted and processed as a matter of priority. Should important irregularities be detected that amount to a disciplinary case, the file has to be passed over to the office of the disciplinary prosecutor and other competent bodies for further investigation. The integrity-related amendments to the current Law on HJPC should also provide for access to information in order to crosscheck asset declarations, notably with the tax administration. Decisive action should also be taken immediately. Voluntary publication of asset declarations by all HJPC members and judicial management should be further encouraged. Implementation of integrity plans and code of ethics must be stepped up. In July 2020, the HJPC has adopted a Rulebook on Internal Organisation and Systematisation of Posts, providing for an integrity structure, which is not however operational with respect to the verification of asset declarations. Disciplinary procedures continue to have little dissuasive effect. There is no specific disciplinary measure for the violation of codes of ethics for judges and prosecutors. In 2019 the office of the disciplinary prosecutor registered 46 complaints against 47 judicial office holders (28% more compared to 2018) – the highest number ever; it completed 42 judicial proceedings (25 from 2019, and 17 from 2018). 37 cases resulted in disciplinary measures, of which 21 involved disciplinary plea bargaining. Two judicial office holders were dismissed. There has been no progress in providing the disciplinary prosecutor with greater autonomy and independence from the HJPC. The disciplinary panels are almost exclusively composed of HJPC members without clear selection criteria. This constitutes a potential conflict of interest, notably in cases where the members of the HJPC are subject to disciplinary procedures. There are no rules guaranteeing full independence and impartiality of the disciplinary panels or the right to judicial review of their decisions, except in cases of dismissals. In 2019, the disciplinary panels composed of HJPC members have ruled that the HJPC President and members may not be subject to disciplinary procedures. This is an extremely worrying precedent. The urgent amendments to the current Law on HJPC should provide for the disciplinary liability of all members of the HJPC, including the President. Disciplinary background should be duly taken into account in the performance, appraisal and promotion of judicial office holders. The HJPC should consider suspending any appointment or promotion until the disciplinary proceedings have been concluded. Failure to submit asset declarations, failure to declare conflict of interests, and serious violations of the codes of ethics should be duly sanctioned and accounted for during appointment, promotion, career advancement and appraisal procedures, and should be a ground for disqualification and negative appraisal. Urgent amendments of the current Law on HJPC should provide for dissuasive sanctions for breach of integrity obligations and an explicit judicial remedy against HJPC decisions concerning the career of judges and prosecutors. Professionalism and competence The appointment and career advancement of judges and prosecutors is not sufficiently based on merit and relies extensively on ethnic criteria or other considerations, especially for presidents of courts and chief prosecutors. Criteria for access to the judicial profession and in particular for promotions remain insufficient. This is a source of serious concern. In May 2020, by decision of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the criteria on performance appraisal for all judges and prosecutors in force since January 2019, have been annulled. This precedent is a major setback for judicial reform. Performance appraisal criteria are key to promotion of a merit-based career of judicial office holders. This decision also affects all pending and future appointments and challenges the competency of the HJPC to enact the evaluation criteria for all judges and prosecutors, contrary to the Commission’s recommendations and the case law of the Constitutional Court. A system of thorough and balanced performance appraisal based on quality criteria must continue be in place and consistently applied to all judges and prosecutors, in line with the European standards. Comprehensive training on public communication and media relations for courts and prosecutors’ offices is required to ensure transparency and public trust in the judiciary. Quality of justice The justice system is not sufficiently accessible and transparent. Key court decisions and confirmed indictments are not made available online, in particular in corruption cases. The HJPC received 118 requests for access to information in 2019, all of which were processed. The HJPC has no communication strategy. Transparency and communication needs to be significantly improved in the judiciary’s interaction with legal professionals, justice users, the media and public at large. The HJPC case law database, which contains over 12,500 decisions, needs to be systematically populated with key rulings from all jurisdictions to foster consistent case law across the country. The database also needs to become accessible to all citizens without charges. Dedicated case law departments should also be in operation in all the highest judicial instances. Case law lacks consistency. The legal status and effectiveness of the judicial panels for the harmonisation of case law in civil, criminal and administrative matters need to be significantly strengthened. Only the harmonisation panel on criminal law met in the reporting period, adopting guidelines on two issues. Ultimately, Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to establish a judicial body to ensure the consistent interpretation of the law and harmonisation of case law across the four legal orders in the country. There are 1,011 judges and 372 prosecutors, including 78 court presidents and 19 chief prosecutors. 60% of the total number of judges and prosecutors and 46% of managers are women. The 2019 budget for the judiciary is EUR 137.3 million, which is more than the 2018 budget (EUR 130.5 million accounting for 0.76 % of GDP). In 2019, EUR 104.8 million was allocated to courts and EUR 29.6 million to prosecutors’ offices (compared to EUR 99.2 million and EUR 28.6 million in 2018). The funds allocated remain insufficient to cover investment needs and to improve the judicial infrastructure, since over 70% of the budget is spent on salaries and compensations. Training for judges and prosecutors remains insufficient. Significant improvements in the duration and quality of mandatory training are urgently needed. Its content should not be limited to legal issues, but also address values and professional skills. Court presidents and chief prosecutors need to be more involved in identifying the training needs of their staff. The HJPC needs to strengthen the supervision of all judicial training activities based on the annual reports received from entity-level training centres. The coordination of donors’ support should be significantly improved. The entity-level training centres are observers to the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), however they should benefit from the expertise within the network in a more proactive manner. A case management system allows monitoring the activities and checking the performance of judges and prosecutors on the basis of the annual workload. All courts and prosecutors’ offices regularly produce statistical reports for the HJPC as well as an annual activity report. The HJPC needs to step up its oversight on the basis of reliable statistical data on the performance of the judicial system, including on case reallocations. Efficiency The length of court proceedings in 2019 further decreased (418 days) compared to 2018 (464 days) in non-utility cases, as did the clearance rate at 103 % (105 % in 2018), but remains very high. Weak trial management and lenient enforcement of procedural discipline by judges add to lengthy proceedings. Managerial oversight of court presidents/chief prosecutors needs to be increased. Legislation and implementing measures need to be adopted urgently to address the excessive length of proceedings. The overall backlog for pending court cases amounts to 2.1 million cases, out of which approximately 1.9 million are cases of unpaid utility bills. This seriously harms judicial efficiency. The backlog of unpaid utility bill cases and small financial claims needs to be reduced significantly by urgently amending the enforcement procedure laws in the entities and the Brčko District to make debt collection more efficient. The backlog for non-utility cases slightly decreased by 3.7% compared to 2018. Annual quotas to reduce the backlog in connection with qualitative performance appraisal criteria, should further be used to reduce the backlog of cases, without hampering the quality of justice. The use of court settlement and alternative dispute resolution methods, notably conciliation and mediation, needs to be promoted and applied in line with European standards and best practices.

Domestic handling of war crime cases Bosnia and Herzegovina’s cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its successor institution the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT-Mechanism) is assessed as satisfactory. The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to closely collaborate with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Mechanism, processing an increasing number of requests for assistance from all prosecutors’ offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Office of the Prosecutor. The Office of the Prosecutor of the Mechanism continues to assess positively the work of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but noted that a much lower number of indictments for war crimes were filed in 2019. The revised National War Crime Strategy was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 24 September 2020. Its adoption was pending since July 2018. The strategy provides the necessary framework for Bosnia and Herzegovina to process the backlog of war crimes cases more efficiently, by providing clearer criteria for distribution of cases to lower courts and prosecutors’ offices and thus allowing the state-level Prosecutor’s Office to focus on the most complex cases. The effective implementation of the revised National War Crimes Strategy should start with no delay. Regional judicial cooperation in processing war crime cases remains largely ineffective. The bilateral protocols on cooperation related to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide between the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its counterparts of Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro have helped to reduce judicial impunity but have not been used recently. Cooperation with Serbia has led to indictments being issued pursuant to cases transferred from Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are yet to lead to convictions. Cooperation with Croatia continued to face a number of impediments and has not led to tangible results. A protocol with the Montenegro prosecutor’s office is in place but is not used. Out of the 214 yet unresolved cases, 89 proceedings for war crimes are pending before courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina due to the unavailability of the indicted persons. Holding multiple citizenships, these individuals are allegedly residing in neighbouring countries. This enables them to escape justice by taking advantage of the prohibition in the countries of the region to extradite their own nationals for the criminal offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. They are also benefiting from the lack of progress of other jurisdictions in addressing the crimes in question. Serbia has failed to enforce the final sentence handed down in Bosnia and Herzegovina against Novak Djukić, despite basic international judicial cooperation tools which are applicable between the countries concerned. War crime cases has been gradually reduced, however the processing of these cases, in particular the most complex ones, is subject to serious delays. The revised national war crimes strategy, whose adoption is pending, should include new timelines for the completion of all war crimes cases by 2023. With an estimated amount of 1,210 cases in July 2013, the total number of unresolved war crime cases had been reduced to 621 (-48.7%) by 31 December 2019; around 253 of these were complex cases. An estimated 214 cases (34,5%) are pending due to the unavailability of the suspects; they require reinforced regional cooperation. In 2019 the number of confirmed indictments and the conviction rates remained stable in the entities and the Brčko District, while decreasing at the state level. The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina should enhance its efforts to process the most complex cases and improve the quality of investigations and indictments. Fight against corruption Bosnia and Herzegovina is at an early stage/has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. No progress was made in addressing the Opinion key priority 7 and 2019 recommendations, which remain outstanding. The authorities and the judiciary have not taken action to address the findings of the Expert Report on Rule of Law issues on the fight against corruption. Corruption remained widespread and all levels of government show signs of political capture directly affecting the daily life of citizens. There has been no progress on effective implementation of anti-corruption strategies and action plans. Lack of harmonisation of legislation across the country and weak institutional cooperation and coordination continued to hamper the fight against corruption. The track record on prevention and repression of high-level corruption remains very limited, due to operational inefficiency and political interference. The authorities need to ensure appropriate legislative and institutional follow-up to the outstanding GRECO recommendations, notably on political party financing and conflict of interest. In the coming year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should in particular: ®adopt the law on the prevention of conflict of interest at state level, and complete the legal framework on the protection of whistle-blowers; ®demonstrate progress towards establishing a track record on the repression and prevention of high level corruption, and ensure an effective and independent judicial process in the COVID-related corruption cases; ®adopt a new state-level anticorruption strategy and action plan, and ensure the effective functioning and coordination of corruption prevention bodies at all levels of government. Track record In 2019, 51 investigations were initiated by the State Investigation Protection Agency (SIPA) into cases of corruption, of which 13 were finalised. 13 reports against 76 persons (68 natural and 8 legal entities) were sent to the competent prosecutors’ offices. The trend shows that only a few investigations have been finalised. There were 181 indictments countrywide, with a decrease of 3.8% compared with 2018 while the number of convictions was 221, a large majority of which were suspended sentences. The trend shows that there is a very limited number of final convictions in high-profile cases. During 2019, indictments were filed in 9 cases (10 in 2018). The HJPC has adopted criteria for the identification of high-level corruption cases. Nevertheless, data on final convictions may not be technically retrieved from the Case Management System. This has to be remedied with urgency. Sanctions are not sufficiently effective, dissuasive and proportionate. Plea bargain agreements are frequent and sanctions are lenient because of the excessive application of mitigating circumstances, with prison sentences often suspended or even converted into fines. Most of the convictions were pronounced for abuse of office or authority. Efforts remain insufficient to establish a track record of proactive investigations, prosecutions and final convictions for corruption. In particular, progress in high-level cases remains insignificant and needs to be seriously stepped up. In the area of conflict of interests, a state-level commission has not yet been established. As regards asset declarations, 585 public officials of state-level institutions are required to submit their financial reports for verification. In 2019, the number of financial reports filed was 138; all other officials failed to submit their financial reports. In absence of the state-level commission, no reports were checked and no sanctions were imposed. A positive trend was recorded in the Sarajevo Canton, where 478 out of 740 office holders submitted asset declarations. 230 out of 262 office holders who failed to submit declarations were sanctioned with misdemeanour warrants during the reporting period. Identified asset discrepancies have been referred for further investigation. Rules on conflict of interests are not enforced in the Federation entity or in the Brčko District. Asset declarations of elected officials are made available to the public through the website of the Central Election Commission, which has no obligation to check their accuracy. In Sarajevo Canton, asset declarations of office holders are published on the website of the cantonal anti-corruption office. The Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption (APIK) granted administrative protection to whistle-blowers in one case in 2019, compared with two in 2018. There is no legislation on whistle-blower protection in the Federation entity. Legislation at all levels of government needs to be aligned with the EU acquis. Institutional framework Corruption Prevention The institutional framework on corruption prevention is largely in place and dedicated corruption prevention bodies have been set up in almost all jurisdictions. However, the functioning and coordination of corruption prevention bodies among themselves and with the APIK are not sufficiently effective. APIK should play a much more proactive role in implementing GRECO recommendations and aligning with international standards. During the reporting period, APIK has finalised a framework plan for the prevention of corruption during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to subsequent action plans agreed by the relevant levels of government, except the Republika Srpska entity.

Corruption prevention bodies at the cantonal level are largely set up on an ad-hoc basis, without full-time professional members and are subordinated to the cantonal government. Their independence needs to be significantly strengthened, as do human and material resources. The anticorruption office of the Sarajevo Canton made good progress. In 2019, the office processed 372 reports of corruption, of which 219 were sent on to the competent authorities for further investigation and action. No judicial follow-up has been reported in these cases. The Prosecutor’s Office of Sarajevo Canton, following the publication of the Expert report on the rule of law issues, established efficient cooperation with the anticorruption office and ensured prosecutorial follow-up in the reported cases. The corruption prevention body of the Sarajevo Canton has advanced a mapping of corruption risks and adopted a methodology on public procurement monitoring in COVID-19 pandemic-related measures. The methodology was followed up by the government of Canton Sarajevo. It also processed 70 reports of irregularities, referring more than 20 reports to competent institutions for follow-up. The Brčko District has designated a body for the protection of whistle-blowers, however it still needs to be rendered operational. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to introduce a comprehensive and effective system of electronic public procurement to foster transparency and reduce abuse of public resources. An enhanced monitoring system of possible abuses of the Law on Public Procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented by the Public Procurement Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and prosecutor’s offices throughout the country. Law enforcement The criminal justice policy throughout the whole country is largely ineffective in the fight against corruption. This is in part due to inadequate penalties that do not ensure sufficient deterrence. Deep legal fragmentation and frequent conflicts of jurisdiction leading to transfers of cases slow down proceedings and reduce efficiency. The police is not proactive in launching investigations. Special Prosecution Offices were established at the state level and in the Republika Srpska entity. However, their effectiveness in fighting corruption remains very weak. Specialised departments at the Federation prosecutor’s office and at the Supreme Court have not yet been set up. Specialised departments in prosecutor’s offices must start to deal effectively with high-level corruption cases and their independence must be significantly strengthened. Pressure and interference in ongoing investigations, especially in high level cases, has continued and is a source of major concern. The state level prosecutor’s office started an investigation in one case of alleged fraud related to the public procurement of COVID-19 medical equipment, largely reported in the media. The investigation is still ongoing. This case triggered unprecedented interference with the investigation. Such undue pressure on the independence of the judiciary is worrisome. The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected the prosecutors’ request for custody of the suspects, and ordered the preventive measure of prohibition to contact other suspects or witnesses. Contrary to its prior practice, the court did not order the supervision of these preventive measures by the law enforcement agency. Legal framework The lack of harmonisation of legislation across the country and weak institutional cooperation and coordination continued to hamper the fight against corruption. The country made no progress in adopting a comprehensive law on prevention of conflict of interest, in line with international standards. The Federation entity needs to adopt legislation on conflict of interest as well as on the effective protection of whistle-blowers. The Brčko District needs to introduce an effective system of monitoring and prevention of conflict of interest. Republika Srpska entity needs to align its conflict of interest legislation with international standards. Lack of transparency seriously hinders the fight against corruption. The legislation on political party financing needs to be further aligned with international standards, particularly with pending GRECO recommendations. Legislation on freedom of access to information at state and entity level needs to be further aligned with international and European standards. Data protection laws are interpreted in a way that protects private rather than public interests. There is no legislation to effectively prevent and address corruption in the private sector and no regulation of lobbying. None of the GRECO recommendations have been implemented in their entirety. The authorities need to ensure appropriate legislative and institutional follow-up to fulfil the outstanding recommendations, notably on political party financing and conflict of interest. The Central Election Commission’s Audit Department needs stronger capacities to monitor compliance with political party financing regulations. Strategic framework Anti-corruption strategies and action plans have been put in place across the country, but need to be urgently updated and harmonised. There has been no progress on effective implementation in 2019. The state-level anticorruption strategy and action plan have expired. New strategic documents need be adopted with no delay and their implementation significantly improved. Anti-corruption strategies need to be harmonised across the country; adequate funding should be provided and monitoring mechanisms established to ensure their implementation. Fundamental rights The legislative and institutional framework on fundamental rights is largely in place. Limited efforts were made over the reporting period to address the Opinion key priorities 5 and 9-13 on fundamental rights. Notably, the Constitutional Court repealed the provision on the death penalty in the Republika Srpska entity constitution, and the first LGBTI Pride Parade took place peacefully in Sarajevo. The exercise of freedom of assembly remains restricted in the Republika Srpska entity, where activists have been subject to intimidation and judicial prosecution. Significant reforms are needed to ensure that all citizens are able to effectively exercise their political rights and thus bring the country’s constitutional and legislative framework into line with the Sejdić-Finci case-law of the ECtHR. Divided education also needs to end in order to overcome the practice of ‘two schools under one roof’ and ensure inclusive and quality education for all. Gender-based violence, ill-treatment of detainees and the protection of minorities, including the Roma, are also issues of concern. The country also needs to develop a comprehensive strategic framework on human rights and on the protection of minorities, including on transitional justice. Last year’s recommendations remain outstanding. In the coming year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should in particular: ®implement court rulings to put an end to divided education; ®designate the national preventive mechanism on torture and ill-treatment and amend the Law on the Human Rights Ombudsman; ®ensure full respect, protection and promotion of freedom of assembly and expression, and refrain from further actions that adversely impact the exercise of these rights. Bosnia and Herzegovina is not an observer country of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The country should already apply the Agency’s methodology for the collection of relevant data on fundamental rights. Bosnia and Herzegovina has ratified all major European and international human rights instruments, most of which are included in its Constitution. Bosnia and Herzegovina underwent the third cycle of the Universal Periodic Review on 13 November 2019; UN Member States issued 207 Recommendations, of which the country accepted 204. The country did not notify the Council of Europe as regards the state of disaster / emergency and the measures undertaken during such a period in derogation to the ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered 21 judgments concerning 379 applications in 2019 (up from 6 in 2018) finding that Bosnia and Herzegovina had violated rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, most of them related to the right to a fair trial, protection of property, right to liberty and security, freedom of expression and non-discrimination. 1,784 applications were submitted to the Court during 2019, bringing the total number of applications pending before the court to 1,816. There are three groups of cases under standard and enhanced supervisory procedure, concerning electoral rights, repossession of properties, and detention conditions for vulnerable persons. The Sejdić-Finci, Zornić, Šlaku and Pilav rulings require constitutional amendments to ensure the equality of political rights among all citizens; they have not been implemented. Bosnia and Herzegovina has no comprehensive policy framework on the promotion and enforcement of human rights, including countrywide strategies on human rights, on non-discrimination, and on the protection of minorities in the absence of these strategies, the protection of human rights continues to be uneven across the country. The Law on the Ombudsman has to be amended in line with the 2017 re-accreditation recommendations, in order to improve the Ombudsman’s independence and effectiveness and designate it as a national preventive mechanism against torture and ill-treatment – an international obligation of the country; the House of Representatives has rejected such amendments during the reporting period. The tripartite composition and consensual decision-making of the Ombudsman institution needs to be revised in the mid-term to ensure its effective functioning. In 2019, the Ombudsman received 3,218 complaints and issued 304 recommendations out of which 109 (35%) were implemented by public and private institutions, the same rate as in 2018 and 2017. The Ombudsman has not opened any minor offence proceedings for non-compliance with its recommendations in the past 5 years, despite having competence to do so. It also has not made use of its competence to initiate or intervene in administrative or judicial proceedings. During the state of natural disaster / emergency, the Ombudsman called upon the authorities to ensure in particular the protection of the human rights of vulnerable categories of citizens and to safeguard freedom to provide information. On the right to life, in October 2019 the Constitutional Court repealed the provision on death penalty in the Republika Srpska entity constitution. The issue was listed among the key priorities on fundamental rights in the 2019 Commission Opinion. As regards torture and ill-treatment, the Ombudsman received 129 complaints in 2019, down from 144 in 2018. Reports of ill-treatment of suspects and prisoners in police stations and detention facilities are processed at a slow rate and only a few officers are punished. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to fulfil its obligations under the Convention against Torture, including by adopting a state-level framework law clearly defining countrywide criteria on the rights of civilian victims of war-time torture, which remain uneven across the country. In August 2019, upon a petition of wartime sexual violence victims, the UN Committee against Torture condemned the practice of application of statute of limitations in compensation claims and requested Bosnia and Herzegovina to establish an effective reparation scheme at the national level to provide adequate and just satisfaction to victims of torture. The country needs to ensure full compliance with this decision. Legislation on the prison system is neither sufficiently harmonised throughout the country nor fully aligned with European and international standards. The Bosnia and Herzegovina law on execution of criminal sanctions was last amended in 2013 with provisions on mutual cooperation, specialised professional training and National Preventive Mechanism, amongst others. While legislation on the execution of criminal sanctions has entered into force in 2018 in the Republika Srpska entity, similar legislation remains to be adopted in the Federation entity to address long-standing issues, such as transfer of prisoners across Entity borders, professionalisation of prison management and security staff and setting-up of a fully-fledged parole system. There is no countrywide strategy on the prison system. The State prison in East Sarajevo was opened in July 2020, three years after completion, but is not yet in operation. Bosnia and Herzegovina should improve detention conditions in prisons and police detention facilities and bring them in line with European and international standards, including by introducing social reintegration programmes for former inmates and digitalisation. The country should further expand the use of alternatives to detention, in particular in the Republika Srpska entity. Prison system, healthcare and social care services lack effective institutional cooperation. During the pandemic, visits to inmates were suspended, save for defence attorneys. Bosnia and Herzegovina lacks a countrywide strategy on transitional justice to ensure a policy framework for dealing with the legacies of the past. The political environment remains divisive and not conducive to reconciliation. Well-documented and established facts about wartime events, including war crimes and genocide, are frequently contested by high-level political leaders, who cast doubts on the independence or impartiality of international and domestic tribunals. Convicted war criminals are still glorified. All actors need to demonstrate full cooperation with the international tribunals by acknowledging and respecting their decisions. Revisionism and denial contradict the most fundamental European values. The unresolved fate of missing persons is a matter of concern. 7,532 people are still missing as a result of the conflict, of which 194 were identified in 2019, according to the data provided by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Missing Persons Institute as of April 2020. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to assume full responsibility and ownership of the process. While the Missing Persons Institute is financially sustainable, its ability to fulfil its mandate is impeded by political pressures and lack of capacity. A support fund for the families of missing persons has not been established, as provided for by the law. The lack of local forensic capacity, especially in the Federation entity, hampers identification. Further efforts are needed on a regional scale to solve the issue of persons who disappeared in relation to the conflicts of the 1990s. Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to bring its laws in line with EU data protection legislation. In July 2020 the country signed the Protocol 223 amending the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to the automatic processing of personal data; it now needs to ratify it. The offence of unauthorised use of personal data is included in all four criminal codes in the country. The Personal Data Protection Agency needs adequate human and financial resources to perform its tasks effectively. The Agency conducted 66 procedures ex officio in 2019, a decrease from 69 in 2018 and 45 in 2017. It received 131 complaints in 2019 compared to 140 in 2018 and 96 in 2017. The Agency conducted 16 inspections in 2019 (42 in 2018 and 83 in 2017). It issued 25 minor offence orders in 2019 (15 in 2018 and 15 in 2017). In 2019 there were 21 administrative proceedings against decisions of the Agency before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina – compared to 12 in 2018 and 2017. The Agency provided 376 expert opinions in 2019 (169 in 2018 and 180 in 2017) and 15 opinions on laws and by-laws in 2019 (37 in 2018). Following the introduction in the State Parliament’s rules of procedure of an obligation to consult the Agency on legislative proposals, such a requirement is still not introduced at other levels of government. In April 2020, the Agency prohibited authorities at all levels to publicly disclose the data of persons who are positive to COVID-19 and persons who received orders on isolation and self-isolation; it also stated that, while it is not illegal to publish a minimum of information on persons who violate the laws or certain prohibitions, it is however contrary to the law to proactively and generally publish data on persons violating restrictive measures Freedom of expression There is some level of preparation on freedom of expression. The country made no progress on addressing the Opinion key priority 12 on guaranteeing freedom of expression and of the media and the protection of journalists by ensuring the appropriate judicial follow-up to cases of threats and violence against journalists and media workers, and ensuring the financial sustainability of the public broadcasting system. Last year’s recommendations remain valid. The legislative framework needs to be aligned with European and international standards and fully enforced. Political influence over public broadcasters persists, and their financial sustainability has not been secured. The law on the public broadcasting system remains unimplemented and entity-level legislation is still not harmonised with this Law. Political pressure, intimidation and harassment towards journalists, including physical and verbal attacks continued during the reporting period, without appropriate institutional follow-up. In the coming year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should in particular: ®ensure the protection of journalists and a systematic institutional follow-up on threats and violence against them; ®ensure the financial sustainability and political independence of public broadcasters, and harmonise entity legislation with the state-level law on the public broadcasting system; ®adopt legislation on media ownership transparency and criteria on public advertising. Intimidation of journalists Serious concern persists over political pressure, intimidation and threats against journalists, and particularly women journalists. The authorities continue to downplay the intimidation of journalists, and their reaction remains weak. Public institutions do not collect data on threats and attacks against journalists and media workers. The BH Novinari association recorded 56 cases of violation of journalists’ rights in 2019, including 9 cases of physical assault, 21 threats out of which 8 death threats, and 10 cases of political pressure. 29 additional cases have been registered since the beginning of 2020. The Ombudsman received 18 complaints, up from 9 in 2018. In July 2019, the Banja Luka court condemned in first instance for attempted murder one of the assaulters of a journalist who had been reporting on the ‘Justice for David’ demonstrations in August 2018. Authorities are expected to act swiftly and demonstrate zero tolerance for threats or attacks against the media, including by ensuring effective police investigations and judicial prosecution leading to final convictions of perpetrators. Legislative environment Defamation has been decriminalised since 2002, but politicians continue to use civil suits to intimidate journalists. Courts should step up their efforts to ensure an expedient processing of defamation cases and consistency of case law on damage awards, to prevent any chilling effect that would force journalists into self-censorship. Legislation on freedom of access to information remains non-harmonised across the country and is still not in line with international and European standards. Legislation on hate speech still needs to be fully aligned with the ECtHR case law and the EU acquis. Legal provisions on data protection and on access to information are still interpreted in a way that protects private rather than public interests. Legislation prohibiting the transmission of information that may cause panic or severely violate public peace and order was in force in the Republika Srpska entity from 19 March to 17 April 2020. Such legislation has a chilling effect on freedom of expression for both media and individuals, leading to the risk of self-censorship. Implementation of legislation/institutions

The Communications Regulatory Agency (CRA) enjoys operational independence, but lacks full political and financial independence. The procedure to appoint its management needs to be improved. This would also help improve its public perception as a neutral and independent body. The CRA was active during the COVID-19 crisis, issuing recommendations and instructions. Public service broadcaster The 2003 law on the public broadcasting system is only partially enforced, and entity laws on broadcasting are not in line with it. Therefore, the three public broadcasting services are exposed to political influence, in particular through politically controlled steering boards, with a worrying trend of self-censorship. The country does not have an appropriate model for collecting fees, as provided for by the law. Entity broadcasters have substantial unpaid debts towards the state-level broadcaster, which are subject to lengthy litigation. Such issues continue to pose a threat to the financial independence and sustainability of the public broadcasting system. Bosnia and Herzegovina also needs to proceed with the digital switc