JUDGES WEB up against a brick wall

When he was leaving USA on his way to Croatia, his friends advised him not to do that. But, he wouldn't be persuaded and didn't believe as he was warned he might have a hard time staying in Croatia. Now, after having spent four years in Croatia, he seems desperate. The Judges Web project, by which he tried to establish a computerized court decisions archive, which would be a huge help for the judges, lawyers and many others, has come up against a brick wall. Many municipal and county courts joined the project, about 200 court decisions have been entered into the system and 2,000 more are waiting to be placed on the web. Still, the future of this project is uncertain. Top judicial circles oppose the placement of court decisions on the web and their becoming public without a special commission's approval. The Ministry of Justice which supported the project two years ago, now seems disinterested. Mr Dražen Komarica finds this odd, especially in the light of the Ministry's intention of introducing something very similar to the concept of the Judges Web. Although being close to the decision to go back to the United States, he still hopes that the four years he dedicated to the Croatian judicial practice haven't been wasted.

LEAVING CROATIA

Mr Dražen Komarica, now twenty-ninc, was taken to the United States at the age of two by his mother. A year earlier, his father had emigrated. The grandfather, Zvonimir Komarica, former inmate of Kerestincc penitentiary and former Yugoslavian minister, participated in the "Croatian Spring". After this movement was crushed, his son was also exposed to pressures, which forced him to leave Croatia. The grandson, Mr Dražen Komarica, graduated in the United States, from Political Sciences and History. He has acquired American ways from top to toe, but he speaks Croatian well and this enabled him to get quite a good idea of the local circumstances and also to articulate them properly. - Being mediocre is highly rated in Croatia. Individuality is restrained, self-initiative as well - this is what Mr Komarica said in a public forum, providing arguments for this trenchant social analysis from his experience in contacts with various state institutions, for instance with the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice, or County Courts.

How did the Judges Web come about, which from Komarica's pride could turn into his defeat? Thanks to r-ullbright scholarship, for sixteen months Mr Komarica did research work on court practices in Croatia, comparing the courts that were located in occupied territories and those in the liberated territories. He spent a month in each of the following cities: Vukovar, Vinkovci, Glina, Sisak, Beli Manastir. Osijek, Knin and Gospić. Listening to the judges saying that they would like to ask their more experienced colleagues in Zagreb aboutwhat to do in certain situations, but they didn't dare to do that, the young scholar came to the conclusion thai it would be of great help to the judges if legally binding court decisions were published on the web, as it is done in the United States.

THE IMPOTENCE OF INDIVIDUALS

He founded a non-governmental organization, the Judges Web, which now has about thirty members - judges, lawyers, law clerks, but also law students. The initial money came from the American Bar Association and later on other donations came from various embassies: Canadian Embassy, American, Dutch. One German organization and some private donors provided their support, too. The project was supported by the companies such as Microsoft Croatia, Span, SYS and Items, by experts from Zagreb Law School and individuals from state institutions.

After the first 220 judgements were placed on the web, two problems came up. First, the judges are reluctant to expose their judgements to the public. And second, it turned out that the most expensive part of the project was visiting the courts, explaining the idea and convincing the judges to join the project with their court decisions. Due to substantial expenditures invested in "public relations", they have run out of money for the digitalisation and entering of files.

The status of public accessibility of court decisions is not sufficiently defined, says Mr Komarica: A court decision is public, but not its explanation. That is, the explanation is public for the parties involved and for those who have a valid legal interest - and who that is, it is for the judge to decide. My dispute with the members of the Supreme Court has arisen from the interpretation of Article 62 of the Law on Courts, saying that a judge is entitled to publish the dispatched court decisions. At the Supreme Court I was told that no judge was entitled to such a decision, but the court, that I was misinterpreting the intention of the Law. I, on the other hand, think that the court is an object, a building. The Law says that the judge, not the court, is entitled to do it.

In other words, the dispute has arisen on the issue whether an individual can say what's important for the court practice or does an institution decide that? Maybe it is important what the Supreme Court has to say about the court practice, but maybe a judge as an individual, who has been studying a certain part of the law, also has something important to say. Let it be on the website and it might be of use to somebody. But, at the Supreme Court they maintain such publishing of court decisions might cause confusion. That's why they are in favour of publishing only those decisions that were selected by an expert commission or by the Supreme Court. The project is ready and functional, so what do we do now? It should be placed in a state institution to keep it alive, says Mr Komarica, but where? If that's the Ministry of Justice, which in Mr Komarica's opinion favours the notion of someone from a higher instance deciding which court decisions to publish, then the initial idea of practicing judges being able to influence the matters that are important for their everyday work will also get lost. The Minister of Justice, Mrs Ingrid Anticevid Marinovic has provided her written opinion of the Judges Web project being in compliance with the law. But, neither she, nor the President of the Supreme Court urged the courts to publish the court decisions as suggested by the Judges Web.

Top judicial circles oppose the placemen! of court decisions on the web and their becoming public without the approval of a special commission or the court.

The Supreme Court has presented three arguments. The first one is that the judges are overloaded as it is, so they have no time for submitting the court decisions. The second one is that the informatization should go from top to the bottom and not the other way round. And the third one is that the top judicial circles should decide about the modalities of informatization and that it is not desirable to have several informatization and court practice publication systems.

- We have nothing against an official informatization system, but why shouldn't there be this other one? - Mr Komarica wonders. In the United States people are also reluctant to having information connected with their names on the Internet, but that is one of the ways to deflect people from situations that might take them to court. The court decisions are accessible to anyone and that is one of the elements that keep people away from courts. But, publishing court decisions is also a way to control the courts. Who else can control them?

Are the judges afraid for their safety? Mr Komarica maintains that even this aspect is in the hands of the system and that for this reason the most severe punishments are foreseen for attacks on police forces and court staff. The trenchant appraisal of the circumstances in the Croatian society, based on the insight Mr Komarica gained while working on the project, is defended by examples: why are young judges reluctant to publish their good judgements, justifying it by their fear of making others envious? Why should anyone be afraid of their colleagues1 envy? There is a judge in Zagreb who has been collecting court decisions for years, scanning them and filing them away. He is in possession of hundreds of court decisions that may be of use to him and to his colleagues in Zagreb. Why not make those files accessible for his colleagues in Sisak, Split or anywhere else in Croatia? That particular judge didn't dare to hand those court decisions over to the Judges Web without the permission, or even an order, from someone in the Supreme Court.

PROJECT EXPORTED TO ARMENIA

While hundreds of court decisions from the area of commercial law, bankruptcy proceedings, securities disputes, damages, restitution of property, seizures, evictions, disputes between politicians and journalists arc waiting to be placed on the Judges Web, Mr Komarica is still looking for ways to keep the project alive and keep it going. If neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Judges Association take this project over, it can be self-financed through a monthly subscription of let's say 25 HRK/month, which would be paid by the lawyers interested to have access to it. Using their password, the subscribers could use the web whenever they need it. The Judges Web is a non-profit organization and this would be sufficient for its operation.

In the meantime, Serbia and Armenia have shown their interest in this project. Mr Komarica hasn't given up yet, but he has made up his mind: he is going back to USA next year and until then he'll try to convince some influential individuals in judicial circles that the Judges Web could be quite a useful thing.

Poslovni tjednik, 11.06.2002.

Download this article

Comments