Recently, I interviewed Judge Iva Buljan of the Commercial Court in Zagreb. We discussed many topics, and she shared so much that, unfortunately, not everything could fit into the interview. However, for this column, I could highlight some parts of our conversation about the (non)digitalization of the judiciary, which is seriously lagging, especially in comparison to European Union member states, even those we would not expect.
When we arrived for the conversation, I must admit that I expected a more representative space for the judges of the Commercial Court in Zagreb, considering it covers more than half of the registered companies in the country. The kind judge warmly welcomed us into her courtroom, where we managed to find a place to sit and talk. Apologetically, I said to her: ‘Please don’t be offended, but this courtroom where we are talking, so to speak, is not exactly representative.’ And I truly am not a person who notices details in someone’s home, for example, whether their windows are clean or if the furniture is to their taste… The judge smiled, telling me that I would have a hard time conveying the atmosphere of that space to the readers. ‘But that space says a lot about us,’ she added, ‘because the Commercial Court in Zagreb is not only visited by business people from Croatia but also from other countries around the world.’ Despite the lack of space, when it comes to our people, they will not view it so negatively because they have become accustomed to it.
Romania as a model
‘It is a reconciliation, I would say stoicism, that is woven deeply into each of us, but when directors of foreign companies enter the courtroom, it is as if they first think they have entered the judge’s office where he usually drinks coffee and smokes, and that he will only move to the courtroom where the hearing will take place. Imagine a judge who feels uncomfortable in front of the parties because of this. It is like someone entering your untidy home; you are immediately in a subordinate position. And then those foreign parties see the judge in his private clothes because judges in Croatia do not have judicial robes, togas (a special type of clothing worn by judges, the name originates from ancient Rome, note). I have been in almost all courtrooms of more advanced EU member states; I think judges only sit like that in southern Italy. In Romania, they have audio recording, a huge courtroom in an architectural building, the judge is always in an elevated position because he is the one who decides on the arguments of the parties and sits under the state coat of arms.’
Judge Buljan continued to speak about the toga, explaining that in it, judges and the judiciary send a message to everyone that they are not individuals at that moment, but the court, that is, they represent the judicial authority. The judicial toga does not require a large amount of money, which means it would not be a problem to procure it for judges in Croatia, but, says Buljan, this precisely tells us that there is no awareness of the need to preserve the dignity of the judiciary. After all, how neglected the judiciary is, the interlocutor illustrates by recalling the words of the late President of the Supreme Court, Radovan Dobronić: ‘When you come to a small town, look for the worst building. That is the court!’
