Annex C – Court Consolidations

District of Banja Luka

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            The problem courts from a restructuring standpoint in Banja Luka District are in Kotor Varoš (- – o), Bosanska/Kozarska Dubica (- – o), and Srbac (- – o).  None of these courts meet the criteria for continuation.  Adding the municipalities of Ćelinac and Skender Vakuf / Kneževo to Kotor Varoš’s jurisdiction, however, should increase both population and case-filings for that court sufficiently to bring it up to minimally acceptable levels (o o o).  Banja Luka Basic Court should welcome the relief of that caseload.  Bosanska/Kozarska Dubica is best merged with the Prijedor court, 33km to the south.  Srbac gravitates most logically toward Bosanska Gradiška / Gradiška; residents of Srbac already travel to Bosanska Gradiška / Gradiška for hospital services.

District of Bijeljina

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            The only problem in the Bijeljina District is the Lopare court (- – +).  Although remote from Bijeljina, Lopare has neither the caseload nor the population sufficient to justify a court.  Travel to Bijeljina is not difficult, however, and there is regular bus service.  If travel proves to be a problem for Lopare residents, the Bijeljina Basic Court may consider holding “court days” in Lopare.

District of Doboj

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            All of the courts in Doboj District meet minimum criteria.  Thus no changes are needed here.

District of Srpsko Sarajevo

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

The District of Srpsko Sarajevo does not contain large cities in which to concentrate courts, posing problems for a reasonable restructuring plan.  None of these courts carries a substantial caseload.  The mountainous terrain and the distances between cities make consolidation difficult, however.  On balance it makes the most sense to close the court in Rogatica, merging it with Višegrad.  This brings Višegrad into minimally acceptable range on all three criteria (o o +).  Although it is the seat of the district court, Srpsko Sarajevo is too small in terms of population and caseload to continue as a separate court.  It should be merged with the Sokolac court; however, given its considerable distance from Sokolac, court facilities with minimal staff should remain open in Srpsko Sarajevo as a two-judge branch of the Sokolac court.  Vlasenica (o – +) just barely misses the minimum criteria for population, but should be kept anyway, as it is too remote to have reasonable consolidation options.

District of Trebinje

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            Geographic distance is a serious problem for the Trebinje District.  Nonetheless, the caseload in Nevesinje (- – +) is too small to warrant a separate court there.  Accordingly, Nevesinje should be merged with the Trebinje court, but remain open as a one-judge branch to meet the needs of the public in that area.  Although Nevesinje is actually slightly closer to Foča/Srbinje, the roads to Trebinje are far superior, particularly in the winter.

Una Sana Canton (Bihać)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            The Bužim (- – o) and Ključ (- – o) courts are the obvious candidates for closure in this Canton.  Some suggestion was made that the municipality of Bosanski Petrovac could be carved off from the Bihać Municipal Court’s jurisdiction and given to Ključ to help bolster its anemic case filings.  But the addition of Bosanski Petrovac (pop. 8272) would still fail to bring the Ključ court into a case-filing and population range sufficient to meet the articulated criteria.  Accordingly, Ključ should be merged with the court in Sanski Most, which may wish to initiate occasional “court days” in Ključ.

Bosanska Krupa (o – o) is also marginal under the criteria, but benefits from the closure of Bužim.  Merging Bužim back with Bosanska Krupa – which historically had jurisdiction for Bužim – brings the merged court within the acceptable range (+ o o). 

Posavina Canton (Orašje)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            Neither court has the caseload or the population to justify itself.  Accordingly, the two courts should be merged into one court based in Orašje, the cantonal capital and the site of the greater population and case-filing activity.  The Orašje court may wish to schedule court days in Odžak, to meet local needs there.  The cantonal court will remain in Odžak.

Tuzla Canton

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

            Clearly the Banovići (o – -) and Živinice (+ o -) courts are too close together to warrant their continued existence as separate courts.  Although Banovići has the better building at present, Živinice has the higher population and higher caseload, and is better located on the main highway.  The municipality of Živinice has pledged its help in securing a suitable building for the court there.  If there are delays in securing an adequate space in Živinice for the combined court, it can operate out of the Banovići building, but the combined court should be relocated to Živinice as soon as adequate space is available. 

The Kladanj court (- – o) is too small, both in caseload and population, to continue and should be merged with another court.  The ideal candidate would be the Olovo court, also too small.  But because Olovo is in the Zenica-Doboj Canton, that merger must await constitutional reform in the Federation that would allow cross-cantonal jurisdiction.  In the meantime, Kladanj should be merged with the Živinice court, 34 km away over a winding mountain pass.  Three judges should be allowed to reside in the new court building in Kladanj, however, as a branch of the Živinice court.  That will keep the building in court hands for an eventual merger with Olovo.

Although Lukavac (o o -) has adequate caseload and population, it is too close to Tuzla to warrant continued existence as a separate court.  No one in Lukavac municipality will be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to Tuzla to court.

Gradačac (- o +) and Srebrenik (o o o) are both marginal courts in terms of caseload and population, and they should clearly be merged.  Where to merge them is a more difficult question.  Gradačac has a slightly larger population and a long history.  Srebrenik is a little more centrally located and has the larger caseload.  Although Gradačac had the better building, the Srebrenik municipality has promised to build space to accommodate the newly merged court.  Although the combined court could go either place, the balance favors Gradačac.

The courts of Gračanica (o + +) and Kalesija (o + o) meet the criteria adequately and can continue as separate courts, provided that Kalesija gets a new building.  Space has been identified there, but it is not clear if and when it will be made available to the court, which is severely cramped in its current quarters.

Zenica-Doboj Canton

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

The courts in Breza (- – -) and Žepče (- – -) are the two obvious candidates for closure as they fail all three criteria. Breza should be merged with the nearby court of Visoko. 

Žepče municipality, however, is the subject of a carefully negotiated agreement acknowledged and implemented by the High Representative in a decision of October 6, 2000.  Accordingly, notwithstanding its failure to meet the criteria, the court in Žepče will be retained pending a full review of the High Representative’s October 6 decision and surrounding circumstances.

Although Maglaj (- – o) has a fine building, it fails most of the criteria, and should also merge with Zavidovići.

Olovo due to its poor caseload and population does not pass the test. However, due to its remote location, and as it cannot be merged with the Kladanj court until constitutional changes occur (see discussion of Kladanj above), it should, for the time being, be a made a one-judge branch of the Visoko court.  The court in Vareš (o – o) serves an extremely small population and is much closer to Visoko.  As “court days” should be sufficient to meet the needs of that community, the court can be merged with Visoko.

Kakanj (o o o), Visoko (o o o), and Zavidovići (o o +) meet minimum standards.  Kakanj is enjoying a vibrant economic development, and the other two courts will grow substantially with their absorption of neighboring courts.

Bosanski-Podrinje Canton (Goražde)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

The court in Goražde (o o +) meets the criteria, and even if it did not, it must remain as the sole municipal court in the canton.

Central Bosnia Canton (Travnik)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

As both Novi Travnik (o – -) and Vitez (+ – -) do poorly respectively in terms of population and geography, they should be merged with the nearby court in Travnik (o o +). In order to accommodate the larger municipal court in Travnik, the cantonal court can be relocated to the space vacated by the municipal court of Novi Travnik.

Fojnica (- – o) and Kiseljak (- – +) are both small and are obvious candidates for merger.  Together they meet minimum requirements (o o +), so the combined court can remain in Kiseljak.

Jajce (- – +) does not have the sufficient caseload and population to justify its existence as a separate court.  It is remotely located, however, and easily meets the criteria for continuation as a branch of the Bugojno (+ + +) court.  

Herzegovina-Neretva Canton (Mostar)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

Neum (- – o) and Stolac (- – o), both seriously deficient under the criteria, should be merged into Čaplijna (o – o) which is currently marginal but which should gain a satisfactory level of population and caseload from the two mergers (+ o o).

Čitluk (- – o) too fails the criteria and is only 20 km from Mostar.  Mostar (+ + +) itself has been divided into three different courts, although there are efforts already underway toward unification. Čitluk should be added to the mix to create a single large court in Mostar.

Jablanica (- – o) and Prozor-Rama (- – +) are both too small to justify their existence and should be merged with the Konjic court. As Prozor-Rama is more isolated, it is strongly recommended that “court days” be held there.

West Herzegovina Canton (Široki Brijeg)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

Although Široki Brijeg (o + +) appears to meet the criteria far better than Ljubuški (- – o), these figures are misleading. In fact, the canton consists of four municipalities and Široki Brijeg’s jurisdiction has been drawn to include three of the four, even though the Grude municipality gravitates more naturally toward Ljubuški.  While mechanical application of the criteria would dictate that the court be kept in Široki Brijeg, there is more to the picture than the numbers.  Of the four municipalities, Ljubuški is considered as the main urban center in the area and attracts most of the economic activity, including twelve attorney’s offices.  The caseload also seems to indicate that litigation cases per capita are significantly higher in Ljubuški than in Široki Brijeg. Accordingly, notwithstanding the stated criteria, it actually makes more sense to keep the municipal court in Ljubuški.

Given the new premises soon to be made available in Široki Brijeg, it is proposed that the cantonal court be located there.

Sarajevo Canton

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

The two Sarajevo municipal courts are located in the same building, and the population for both courts comes almost entirely from urban and suburban Sarajevo itself. As stated in the Preliminary Report, retaining two courts provides no benefits in terms of efficiency, administration or cost savings, and there is evidence that jurisdictional questions between the two courts consume staff and even judge time.  Accordingly, the two courts should be merged.

Canton 10 (Livno)

*Explained on pp. 4-6 of the report and calculated on the spreadsheets at Annex E.
**How the court satisfies the three objective criteria:  Caseload (C), Population (P), and Geography (G), as explained on pp. 7-9.

Given the relatively low population and the small caseload in this canton there is clearly no need for three municipal courts. Tomislavgrad (- – o) and Drvar (- – +) fail most of our criteria and should be merged with Livno. However due to the truly remote location of Drvar, it is proposed to keep it open as a one-judge branch of the Livno court.