FINFRAUD.ART · INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT
When Judges Are Sanctioned
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Disciplinary Record for 2025
Investigative review · Published 25 March 2026
Judicial misconduct can be difficult for the public to verify because disciplinary decisions are often scattered across institutions and not presented in a single accessible record. A report published on 25 March 2026 by the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIN) in Bosnia and Herzegovina summarised disciplinary proceedings concluded during 2025: 27 judges and prosecutors were dealt with, 21 received sanctions, and six were cleared.
The outcomes ranged from financial penalties and public warnings to dismissal. The cases provide concrete examples of professional negligence, delays in issuing decisions, and failures in the handling of court proceedings. They also show why each disciplinary finding must be distinguished from a criminal conviction: the sanctions discussed here arose from professional disciplinary proceedings.
01 · FAILURE TO REVIEW A CASE FILE
Three Judges Fined After a Domestic-Violence Plea Decision
CIN reported that a Basic Court in Bijeljina delivered a verdict in a domestic-violence case even though not all members of the judicial panel had read the indictment or familiarised themselves with the case file. The panel imposed a suspended sentence negotiated through a plea agreement, although the applicable offence and circumstances called for a custodial sentence.
Judges Aleksandar Despenić, Dragoljub Đurić and Marinko Sladić were fined for professional negligence. Their salaries were reduced by 10 per cent for six months. Their appeals were rejected; the disciplinary findings described their conduct as conscious negligence and a failure to follow the relevant legal provisions. These are reported disciplinary findings, not a claim that the judges were criminally convicted.
02 · DELAYED JUSTICE
Sanctions for Delays and Unlawful Decisions
The report also described sanctions for other forms of professional failure. Judge Jasmina Lipovača received a 10 per cent salary reduction for five months after a six-month prison sentence was allowed to become time-barred during enforcement. Judge Mirjana Kevo received a public warning in connection with delays in drafting a decision and failure to forward a case for appellate review. Judge Denis Kurtović received a 20 per cent salary reduction for three months after delays in drafting decisions in 27 cases.
The most severe outcome in the 2025 group was the dismissal of Ekrem Šarić, a judge at the Municipal Court in Velika Kladuša. According to the disciplinary ruling as summarised by CIN, he had issued unlawful decisions and committed other professional breaches.
03 · WHY PUBLIC RECORDS MATTER
A Sanction Is Only as Transparent as Its Record
Disciplinary action matters, but the public also needs access to the reasoning: what duty was breached, what evidence supported the finding, whether an appeal was heard, and what sanction was ultimately imposed. CIN reported that its database contains 334 disciplinary decisions issued between 2010 and the end of 2025 against judges, prosecutors and professional associates.
The same report makes clear that not every investigated official was sanctioned. Six officials were cleared in the 2025 proceedings. A credible audit must preserve those distinctions, rather than treating a complaint, an investigation, a disciplinary finding and a criminal conviction as interchangeable.
Judicial accountability must be documented—not merely demanded.
Published disciplinary decisions allow the public to test whether professional standards are enforced consistently and whether sanctions correspond to established findings.
Sources